[burnstek]

If you have a problem with MIT taking Epstein's money, then you have a problem with money in general. We all take money in some fashion from disgusting, psychotic, and evil people on a regular basis. Particularly so when we're on social security, medicare, or another social program.

It's like the people who are against hunting, but who are happy to eat store bought meat.

[bb88]

So taxes are mandatory. They don't change the reputation of a person.

Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout, when in fact deep down he's profiting on human misery.

[davrosthedalek]

I agree, but these contributions were anonymous. So the reach of the sleazeball to boy scout effect was limited to the people Epstein talked to anyway, and could see the sleazeballness first hand.

[anigbrowl]

They were anonymous because the recipients hid the fact of their origin. There are receipts of their conversations about this.

[loeg]

Your comment is problematic for Ito, but non-responsive to the parent comment's argument.

The thread is: bb88 proposes that Epstein's charitable giving to MIT was a way to reputation launder ("turn a sleazeball into a boyscout").

davrosthedalek disputed that claim, as the donations were anonymous.

The reason for anonymity doesn't matter; the net effect is there is no plausible reputation laundering effect from anonymous donations.

[davrosthedalek]

Is it actually known who requested the anonymization? It's clear that it was required to hide it, but was it something Epstein wanted or only accepted? I didn't see it in any of the articles, but I might have missed it.

[rowanG077]

How do they make a sleazeball look like a boy scout?

[bb88]

The Jeffrey Epstein Modern Art Wing

The Jeffrey Epstein Pediatric Fund for Incurable Childhood Illnesses

The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT

The Jeffrey Epstein Fund for Worldwide Peace

(Note: some of these I'm sure I made up...)

[rowanG077]

This doesn't answer the question. You really think a person that knows Epstein has done the things he has done and knows about the "The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT" is going to think that Epstein is some A OK dude?

[anigbrowl]

How do you think he got away with what he did for so long? People would hear 'that Epstein fellow is said to be pedophile' and think 'Jeffrey Epstein, respectable philanthropist? Surely not.'

Why are you caping so hard for this guy?

[rowanG077]

What do you mean getting away with what he did for so long? He was sentenced more then 10 years ago for having sex with underage girls.

Donating money doesn't make you a philanthropist. I'm not caping(? not sure what this means) at all for Epstein. I simply think it beyond ridiculous to fault an institution for taking donations from any individual as if that act implies the institution agrees with all actions that individual has taken.

[bb88]

Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers.

Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."

[rowanG077]

I didn't hear about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein. In fact I didn't know the guy at all.

But to disprove your point. If I go back one year with the wayback machine and look at his wikipedia the first sentence on his page mentions he is a registered sex offender[1].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180807122025/https://en.wikipe...

[lone_haxx0r]

> Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout

Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.

[bb88]

So MIT should be able to accept money profited from Child Traffickers and Drug Cartels?

[loeg]

Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.

I don't understood the argument for non-politician organizations returning donations from problematic people. By keeping the money, you're enriching your organization, at expense to the bad person. Win-win for society.

For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery, so in that case I can understand demands to refusing contributions from bad donors. (But even there, better to redirect it to a good charity than to return it to the "bad donor.")

[bb88]

> Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.

I think that just confuses the issue.

> For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery.

1. Alice accepts money from Bob

2. Alice discovers Bob is running a underage sex trafficking ring on the side.

3. Alice continues to accept money from Bob.

So let's ask the following questions:

1. Is Alice implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?

2. Does Alice look like she's implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?

3. How does the public know what the true motives of Alice are? Does she support underage sex trafficking or not?

4. How do we know if Alice is telling the truth as long as she accepts money from Bob?

5. How does this affect Alice's reputation? Would you go to Alice to seek help with trying to stop underage sex trafficking? Or has Alice been "tainted" with Bob's money?

[lone_haxx0r]

Yes, though that's probably illegal on the donor's side, but I see no problem with MIT receiving it.

[howeyc]

I have to agree. This is getting ridiculous. Taking money from an individual does not mean you have administered absolution.