I dunno if my Uni dodged the bullet because it was one step down in status or if it was the shitty airport.

One thing I have learned from the Epstein files is that when someone labels themselves as “woke,” “progressive,” or committed to “class struggle,” you should not automatically take them at their word. People lie and cheat all the time.

I remember somewhere around 2014 or 2015, when Reddit was being split by the gender wars and I picked the "woke" side (and by "woke" I mean "not willing to harass women for stupid shit"). People were talking about these really reactionary academics, and while I agreed with them that they were A Problem, I didn't entirely see how it was connected to the stupid culture war shit going on in, say, the gaming space. Turns out it was all caused by one really well-connected finance scammer with a private island and no conscience.

Jeffrey Epstein will go down in history as the man who broke America from beyond the grave.

Thank you for articulately describing an ugly part of the world of science that I've seen over the last 40 years. I appreciate your "There but for the grace of God" thought. If I were a bigger star, I can only hope that I would have behaved better than some of those big stars.

I think this wave of guilt-by-association is starting to go a bit too far. There were some douchebags around Epstein, for sure. But knowing a douchebag, taking donations from a douchebag, or even going to parties hosted by a douchebag does not automatically make you a douchebag. Social people go to a lot of parties, and money is just money.

Call out the miscreants and bad behavior in the Epstein files, sure. But be specific. I don't like these articles insinuating "the world is full of douchebags". It isn't.

The mechanics of the cancellation by the guilt of association should be reconsidered. The focus needs to be on the ones who are accused of crimes or accused of obstructing justice at the justice system level which enabled this to continue for so many years. It may be another unpopular opinion but I also think more focus should be on his execution. There is enough circumstantial evidence to support the idea that he was given a summary execution. After all, any scientist who took money or was targeted by his network was only able to do that because he was not kept in prison. The lack of a trial, the questionable death of the main defendant, all of it creates an atmosphere of secrecy which enables the redactions on files released publicly to become sort of weaponized. The focus is kept everywhere but the people named most often or the redacted names who should be held accountable and face due process without being summarily executed.