It is well-known that Gates continued to associate with Epstein after the latter was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution. There doesn't really need to be anything else to the story in my opinion.
(Editing to be clearer: I don't think he is guilty of Epstein's crimes by association. I think he is guilty of associating with Epstein while being aware of some of his horrible crimes. I'm not saying he needs to be locked up over this, just that I don't trust him, and I question the judgment of people who do.)
Gates knew Epstein from earlier so likely would have known about the conviction. Also, it sounds like relationship soured in 2014.
The issue is that hanging out or doing business with someone as unsavory as Epstein is gia
I doubt as severe as what Epstein did.
You using the word "guilt" suggests you're venturing into the strawman of "innocent until proven guilty", or that public opinion must follow the same rules as the judicial system.
Even if he didn't do anything illegal, Jeffrey Epstein is gross and awful. It's totally fine for society to not want people "guilty" of associating frequently and voluntarily to be powerful and influential.
Public opinion is not a court.
Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him but they don't appear at all to be desirable targets to debase with the same treatment and that's probably because they aren't rich or powerful or influential. And I'm certain that's what's tripping you. It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encouraged by you to take a dump on certain people when a tiny vague chance presents itself only because the person is powerful.
I found this earlier comment from you on this topic which is a bit funny given your statement. To me youre kinda describing yourself.
HN is pretty divided about Stallman. Bringing up the things he actually at one
time said, even if later he said something different, results in a lot of
downvoting and toxicity. You can't talk about him without it devolving into
binary thinking and binary debates. Same as everything else in 2023 I guess.For one, powerful people generally have advisers whose job it is to prevent people like Gates from associating with sex criminals like Epstein.
Why is that irrational?
> Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him
Surely we as reasonable people can acknowledge the societal difference between Bill Gates and his tailor, no?
> It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encouraged by you to take a dump on certain people when a tiny vague chance presents itself only because the person is powerful.
Powerful people's decisions deserve to be scrutinized at a higher level than societally irrelevant people, yes.
> I found this earlier comment from you on this topic which is a bit funny given your statement. To me youre kinda describing yourself.
That comment is in response to a person saying they simply asked "Why" and were downvoted. The answer is because rational thought is thrown away in favor of binary thinking with regards to people like RMS.
To be direct, my comment is almost not about RMS at all. Simply, every human is allowed to decide what they are or are not okay with. If you think what RMS did was wrong, you're welcome to hate him for it. This is not the same as a jury deeming a person guilty of a crime, and relating the two is a strawman.
I think the opposite, at least as far as this is concerned. To Epstein's tailor, Epstein is very replaceable, whereas to Gates, the tradeoff for ditching Epstein would be something like millions fewer people getting vaccinations
Here's where "guilt by association" is bad:
1. You're a vegetarian.
2. Hitler is also a vegetarian.
3. Therefore, you're evil.
Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good:
1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.
2. There is no reasonable way Gates couldn't know this about Epstein.
3. Therefore, Gates is in the wrong for having a relationship with Epstein.
There are many factors that go into evaluating such claims, such as whether it is reasonable to know the facts about the person you are associating with, and what sort of power dynamic exists between the two. For example, MIT Media Lab received a lot of funding from Epstein, and yet I don't think the students there need to be tarred by association. The professors, I'm more suspicious of. The leadership like Joi Ito are despicable, given that Epstein was convicted of "procuring a child for prostitution" in 2008!
Simply dismissing all of these claims as "guilt by association" means that you aren't evaluating their respective strengths independently.
In my opinion, yes, absolutely.