[roenxi]

No, it isn't wrong; guilt by association is not a civilised concept.

And if someone commits a crime then the courts determine an appropriate punishment and that is the end of what gets called 'wrong'.

I'm on board if you don't want to talk to convicted paedophiles - seems reasonable to me - but being judgemental of someone else's relationships is not fair.

[dmix]

Thank you, the way people bring out the pitchforks merely over guilt-by-association is one of the worst parts of social media.

I swear we're going to have to relearn all of the lessons we learned over the centuries of developing civil society, all in the name of some strange utopian perfectionism we're putting on every popular person. Mob justice is rarely good justice.

[malvosenior]

There are obviously times when mob justice goes too far. I do not think Epstein is one of those cases. He was a sex trafficker for the rich and powerful. His associates should be investigated and their attempts to get the media to bury the story should be pointed out.

[dmix]

I wasn't talking about you per se or even Gates alone, so please don't take it as a personal attack. There's plenty of examples of people taking this guilt-by-association stuff way too far. A popular one is when politicians take a photo with an unsavoury character, even though they took a hundred that night alone, and the media spins it like their buddies.

The Gates case is more complicated, as you mentioned, but the general trend is worrying and I personally wouldn't public tell people I met with Epstein either.

[romwell]

>No, it isn't wrong; guilt by association is not a civilised concept.

When it comes to courts, absolutely.

When it comes to making a judgement call (and also associating with people), it's expected.

You make a choice who you maintain relationships with. You can, and will be judged by the choices you make.