These are people who did not give a fuck and continued to work with a rapist
Oh there are absolutely people in this very thread who don’t understand why it’s immoral to continue to do business with a rapist as long as it’s in pursuit of science.
I’d have no problems taking dirty money, as long as I wouldn’t need to do anything for it… am I just dumb, or why would it be immoral to make dirty folk less-rich?
I’m sure the women you work with would be so pleased to know that the pursuit of science is much more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable. It would make them really comfortable to be around you.
Maybe it’s some kind of language barrier, but my definition of business is “any activity or enterprise entered into for profit”. So again, where would his profit be in giving me money with no strings attached?
How do you get so caught up in thinking wrong? I asked a hypothetical question and you’re acting like I’d ever support him? The only negative thing about him being killed is that his victims can’t get retribution.
Knowingly using dirty money is immoral, even if used for a good cause [with the expection of undoing what made the money dirty in the first place]. On a tier-list, it would be a D tier option, above things like stealing toothpaste from a walmart, but below scalping via artificial inflation.
The immoral part is via association. Even if you denounce what the donor has done, you are still allowing them to be partially responsible for any good that comes out of the work/research.
Desperation for funding has often led people to compromise morality for progress, and I struggle to judge what is the correct decision, even if the moral option is clear.
I mean really, honestly most people didn’t give a shit about Epstein until someone suocided him. And even then, gave very few shits until earlier this year.
Like I’d expect that bar for politicians, celebrities, public figures…people who have money to begin with and staff to tell them that this person shouldn’t be associated with…I don’t know if I can set that same expectation on academics reaching out for funding from somebody whose been known to fund academia.
Epstein wasn’t a household name until his death; even post “suicide” and the revelations about his pedo empire it’s still not common for people to extensively research the background of strangers they’re cold-calling, and Epstein had more than enough money to SEO away reports of his conviction.
If you didnt know him or weren’t told directly about him being a pedo, it was unlikely that you could have known about him at the time. Most of the folks in the epstein files did know him though - and it’s pretty easy to check which group someone falls into.
I would say his name became pretty well known before his death. I’d say more like 2018 with the Miami Herald exposé.
Less known but still pretty public was Giuffre in 2011 with the allegations against the Andrew formerly known as a prince. It was a pretty big story for the UK royal family. Maybe not “household” level though.
Epstein’s arrest was also pretty big news, though yes it was only a month or so before his death, but I would have to say he was known by a pretty significant number of people by this point, definitely household name by the time of arrest.
After his death is when the conspiracy theories went all over the place, but I wouldn’t equate that to his being a household name.
Thank you for clarifying! And I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
I don’t think being wrongfully persecuted for being in the Epstein files is a thing. It’s kinda the point of the meme that plenty of scientists did go on his plane and to his island. And some of those emails from scientists were commiserating over how “me too has gone too far”.
Yeah but what paleontologist doesn’t get excited when the insanely rich guy funding your research shows up and offers them to take a plane ride to his private island?
That’s literally the stuff of movies, man.
He was a shitty human but he did appreciate science/academia…or at least that’s what his public spending seems to have indicated.
yeah, like i don’t know anyone cool with a private islan… does a couple of rocks in a backyard koi pond count? because aside from that, i don’t know anyone cool with a private island.
the koi pond island is pretty cool though, we rigged up a waterfall to run through the rocks.
Yeah but what paleontologist doesn’t get excited when the insanely rich guy funding your research shows up and offers them to take a plane ride to his private island?
Paleontologists that aren’t pedophiles that want to go to pedophile island?
I think there is value in how those who asked or accepted funding think about it. People who just see the cash, yeah, deplorable. People who feel conflicted about it, but can provide for their aids and families because of funding, maybe not so much. Anyone excited to go interact and associate directly, going to the island; super slimy and needs to be excommunacated from the scientific community.
Anyone excited to go interact and associate directly, going to the island; super slimy and needs to be excommunacated from the scientific community.
Yep which is why I highlighted that sentence in particular. You’re right, there’s some grey here and it’s not completely black and white.
The problem is that this kind of thing, this looking the other way in order to fund projects, helped cover Epstein’s crimes for so long. Not everyone who helped is directly guilty. But this is the system that helped Epstein operate with no consequences simply because he was able to bribe people.
A pretty huge amount of people on the epstein files though are just individuals who were emailing regarding grants, donations, etc
Which is extremely normal, they just email all rich benefactors known for donating to causes.
Id expect like over half the names in the files just fall under that category…
Re-read the note they put. It’s people who continued to email the org and ask for money and shit after Epstein was convicted
These are people who did not give a fuck and continued to work with a rapist
Oh there are absolutely people in this very thread who don’t understand why it’s immoral to continue to do business with a rapist as long as it’s in pursuit of science.
The difference here is that they continued to engage in correspondence after his conviction.
I’d have no problems taking dirty money, as long as I wouldn’t need to do anything for it… am I just dumb, or why would it be immoral to make dirty folk less-rich?
Ethics are important in science
Thanks, that’s good point! it’s refreshing when smart people don’t feel the need to be rude.
I’m sure the women you work with would be so pleased to know that the pursuit of science is much more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable. It would make them really comfortable to be around you.
That wasn’t the question. My question was, how would he be benefiting from me taking his money?
You don’t see how it’s immoral to take funding from Epstein?
I can also dodge questions by asking a different question. Is it immoral to steal from billionaires?
It’s essentially signing off on his other actions by engaging in business as usual after his conviction.
I didn’t think I needed to spell that out to anyone who wasn’t an Epstein supporter.
Maybe it’s some kind of language barrier, but my definition of business is “any activity or enterprise entered into for profit”. So again, where would his profit be in giving me money with no strings attached?
How do you get so caught up in thinking wrong? I asked a hypothetical question and you’re acting like I’d ever support him? The only negative thing about him being killed is that his victims can’t get retribution.
Knowingly using dirty money is immoral, even if used for a good cause [with the expection of undoing what made the money dirty in the first place]. On a tier-list, it would be a D tier option, above things like stealing toothpaste from a walmart, but below scalping via artificial inflation.
The immoral part is via association. Even if you denounce what the donor has done, you are still allowing them to be partially responsible for any good that comes out of the work/research.
Desperation for funding has often led people to compromise morality for progress, and I struggle to judge what is the correct decision, even if the moral option is clear.
Is that expected of paleontologists?
I mean really, honestly most people didn’t give a shit about Epstein until someone suocided him. And even then, gave very few shits until earlier this year.
Like I’d expect that bar for politicians, celebrities, public figures…people who have money to begin with and staff to tell them that this person shouldn’t be associated with…I don’t know if I can set that same expectation on academics reaching out for funding from somebody whose been known to fund academia.
You don’t think the line should be drawn at pedophilia?
What are we doing here? We’re wholesale signing off on supporting a prolific and dangerous pedophile?
Epstein wasn’t a household name until his death; even post “suicide” and the revelations about his pedo empire it’s still not common for people to extensively research the background of strangers they’re cold-calling, and Epstein had more than enough money to SEO away reports of his conviction.
If you didnt know him or weren’t told directly about him being a pedo, it was unlikely that you could have known about him at the time. Most of the folks in the epstein files did know him though - and it’s pretty easy to check which group someone falls into.
I would say his name became pretty well known before his death. I’d say more like 2018 with the Miami Herald exposé.
Less known but still pretty public was Giuffre in 2011 with the allegations against the Andrew formerly known as a prince. It was a pretty big story for the UK royal family. Maybe not “household” level though.
Epstein’s arrest was also pretty big news, though yes it was only a month or so before his death, but I would have to say he was known by a pretty significant number of people by this point, definitely household name by the time of arrest.
After his death is when the conspiracy theories went all over the place, but I wouldn’t equate that to his being a household name.
I’m sorry, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.
You said he wasn’t a household name until he died.
I would not agree with that, it was definitely earlier enough to cause issues, including reopening investigations, long before he died.
Thats all.
Thank you for clarifying! And I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
I don’t think being wrongfully persecuted for being in the Epstein files is a thing. It’s kinda the point of the meme that plenty of scientists did go on his plane and to his island. And some of those emails from scientists were commiserating over how “me too has gone too far”.
But sure, not all scientists…
Yeah but what paleontologist doesn’t get excited when the insanely rich guy funding your research shows up and offers them to take a plane ride to his private island?
That’s literally the stuff of movies, man.
He was a shitty human but he did appreciate science/academia…or at least that’s what his public spending seems to have indicated.
Paleontologists who’ve read “The Island of Doctor Moreau”? Private islands and science lead to a bad time.
yeah, like i don’t know anyone cool with a private islan… does a couple of rocks in a backyard koi pond count? because aside from that, i don’t know anyone cool with a private island.
the koi pond island is pretty cool though, we rigged up a waterfall to run through the rocks.
Paleontologists that aren’t pedophiles that want to go to pedophile island?
I think there is value in how those who asked or accepted funding think about it. People who just see the cash, yeah, deplorable. People who feel conflicted about it, but can provide for their aids and families because of funding, maybe not so much. Anyone excited to go interact and associate directly, going to the island; super slimy and needs to be excommunacated from the scientific community.
Yep which is why I highlighted that sentence in particular. You’re right, there’s some grey here and it’s not completely black and white.
The problem is that this kind of thing, this looking the other way in order to fund projects, helped cover Epstein’s crimes for so long. Not everyone who helped is directly guilty. But this is the system that helped Epstein operate with no consequences simply because he was able to bribe people.
Funding is way more important than holding a pedophile accountable. /s