1/ OK so per yesterday thread on the morality of a “good” cause accepting money from a “bad” person...
@RonanFarrow writes this NewYorker piece. Now, the headline anchors you but here is a legit question on the emotional moral reaction we have to it—...
2/ Here is a situation (per details of the article) where Epstein got NO public credit—and they actively sought to not give him credit. (He could have not donated and surely lie and say in private that he was a donor to MIT) BUT—
3/ It is the *intention of the intention*
It feels like this is of public interest not because MIT sought to not credit Epstein (a “good” thing) but because at best it is affiliated with a bad person and by affiliation taints them as bad. OR worse because...
4/ (really what this feels this is about) the effort to NOT give him credit was maybe not done out of moral reprobation (“good” intention)—BUT rather done wittingly, sneakily to conceal & evade anticipated criticism or shame by disapproval of MIT constituents (“bad” intention)...
5/ Would it‘be been better to say:
A)We‘re NOT taking any $ from Epstein because he committed a crime & served time
B)We ARE taking $ from a bad person but giving it to good people—& not giving bad person any credit
C) Epstein is bad
He must be punished & give to good causes!
6/ Yesterday thread
You can follow @wolfejosh.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.