Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhombocombus | Hacker News Reader

This seems like an appropriate response. I was approached by a woman who wanted to merge her lab with mine a number of years ago, I didn't go through with the deal for a number of reasons, but many years later it was revealed that this woman was a neo-nazi. I had no inkling in my business dealings with her that this was who she was, but it would have made zero difference if I had merged my business with hers, as I would have been in business with a nazi. Folks make mistakes. Owning those, taking accountability for your mistakes and moving forward with contrition is the only way to make those kinds of mistakes okay.

View on HN

I was listening to a recent podcast interview of Ricky Gervais on this topic, where he observed “it’s not enough to apologize anymore and move on. People want blood, people want you ruined, because it’s a point-scoring competition now.” [1]

My only disagreement with Ricky is that I'm not sure it was ever enough, but the people for whom it isn't enough now have a platform.

[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ricky-gervais-takes-o... is a write-up of the podcast interview

Should it be enough to apologize and move on? I would say that such apology is empty. There should be that part where people who were affected are made even as much as possible, where we reflect on what was supposed to be done differently and make changes for future.

There was really no one who voiced disagreement at the time? If no, why? If yes, what did happened to their career and status in the organization? How were they argued again, how did the fight at the time went? Were they retaliated against at the time?

All these things matter and should matter, so that next time people voice dissenting opinions in case like this and are listened to.

The apology includes a promise to raise an equivalent amount of money and to donate it to charities involved in trafficking.

The difference is between "wanting blood" and "restorative justice." In former, vengeance is a motivating force, potentially with little regard to making amends. Simply inflicting pain can be sufficient. In other, the goal is to compensate, restore and reform. This may or may not require inflicting great pain or ruining someone.

This is likely a reaction to the lack of accountability for those in power. For most of these things, the court of public opinion is the only available option left for any hint of accountability. The courts cannot be counted on for it. The legislature cannot be counted on for it.

The way to fix this would be by introducing more accountability, but the national review would oppose such things as 'unneeded regulation'.

The widespread feeling now is that if you are rich and powerful, you do not face the consequences for your actions. There are some pretty good reasons for feeling that way too.

My hypothesis is that if we started increasing accountability, we would see a decrease to the type of behavior you're describing.

This is frankly ridiculous. Conservatives at the National Review - of all people - should understand that consequences exist and should be meaningful. If Kevin Hart made homophobic comments in the fairly recent past, why should we assume he has changed? He never apologized on his own; in fact, he repeatedly refused to apologize until public pressure made it unavoidable. He almost certainly would never have taken back his comments if they were not brought to public attention by someone else. Not if he lived three lifetimes.

This is why many people are not satisfied with a simple apology; it rings hollow because it is hollow and purely self-preserving. Life isn’t: “Press button here, apologize for bigotry, erase everyone’s memories.” The shit you say matters, whether 8 seconds or 8 years in the past, especially when such behavior was a regular part of Kevin Hart’s set for a long time, not an off-the-cuff comment.

Many people knew that homophobia was a bad thing 8 years ago. Treating gay people with respect is not a new invention.

Ignorance isn't usually a defense, but it seems difficult to blame someone in these kinds of cases. If my former college roommate is a nazi, that doesn't seem to reflect on me, even if we sometimes got donuts together.

Obviously this isn't the case when our theoretical Nazi is going around throwing up salutes and goose-stepping, but certainly no human can be judged for not being omniscient?

They were accepting funding after Epstein's first conviction (and dodgy deal) in Florida. Moreover, Minksy, the lab founder, has emerged as a client of Epstein's.

This "apology" arrived only after high-profile researchers at the lab have started quitting.

"Sorry we got caught."

> They were accepting funding after Epstein's first conviction

If the funding wasn't conditioned on naming things in Epstein's honor or giving him authority over how funds were directed, why would much, if any, diligence be due?

A VC investing in a business assumes risk of the others failing (potentially on behalf of others, if it's a VC firm with other people's money), which makes it so that diligence about factors relevant to that performance due.

But accepting a no-strings donation from a charitable foundation? What makes particular diligence about the foundation’s head due?

(I'm not defending Ito here as it seems like he was in a position beyond accepting donations where he reasonably should have known about Epstein's background; I'm just curious about why one would argue that accepting a donation creates an expectation of vetting the head of the foundation providing the donation.)

The saying is "ignorance of the law is no defense"--it's a real stretch to recast it in terms of "ignorance of the activities of an independent third party" don't you think?

In the strained analogy to Epstein, consider that this (now hypothetical) neo-nazi has been convicted of being a neo-nazi and now wants to give you a big pile of money.

It's called due diligence. The guy had a conviction on the record for underage prostitution. This isn't mom and pop's corner gas station, this is MIT, a well respected institution. You don't get "well I had no idea this man who has a public criminal record had a bad history" when MIT is running background checks on janitors that wouldn't get through with something like that on their record.

The world needs more accountability, not less, especially amongst those in power. Patting this guy on the back for posting an apology on the internet is effectively approving of the status quo that got us here. MIT can and should do better.

Having had to shake the proverbial money tree in academia though, I can say that I could have fallen into that trap if an enthusiastic investor wanted to plow money into my project. I certainly don't mean to pat this person on the back, but what are they supposed to do? should they be drummed out of science and/or society?

You're correct in that this person should have known better, but I am also saying that it is entirely understandable how it happened and it appears that he is genuinely contrite and trying to make it better. What would you have done in that situation?

> should they be drummed out of science and/or society?

That's certainly an interesting philosophical and moral question. Personally I'm not sure where I would draw that line. I am, however, pretty comfortable saying that education institutions accepting money from people who admitted to sex crimes against minors is on the "nope" side of the line.

Appropriate?

This is as good as agit-prop as any.

Sorry, but not sorry: why is it important that someone was associating with a child molester, if they never experienced or was witness to, or participated in, the said crime, has an opinion? Has to defend themselves, for association?

A conclusion one can reach, upon careful inspection: molesters live among us. You will not always recognise them. Be fearful, always, of the ones you think you can trust - for their altitude, for their contribution, for their gratitude.

Essentially, this is white terrorism.

Epstein was a heinous, now famous, human being. There are a lot more of them out there.

I thought they didn't know about the fact they were dealing with a criminal at all. So if anything to me, assuming the above is true, an apology isn't appropriate at all. If I deal with someone in good faith with no knowledge of their monstrous doings or the accusation of such I am blameless. If I am aware that they are doing things like that I should be reporting them but that's a different scenario.

Ito did know Epstein was a child sex rapist. Ethan Zuckerberg urged Ito not do deal with Epstein at the time and he ignored him: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com