Posted by koolba 11/19/2025
If you give a school enough evidence. Like, say, this email. Your career there is done.
And that's any school.
Good riddance.
Don’t forget Epstein’s circle of rapists and rapist-enablers still had friendly communication with him long after he was convicted and known pedophile.
I have doubts about officials’ ability to get real justice. I’ll still me shouting for blood in the streets, though.
i know we like expanding the categories of all sins and then only refering to things by category name without the specifics, but.
We are at a dangerous point in history. I personally believe that inequality is inevitably going to end in violence and we're beyuond the point of avoiding this with electoral politics. People are struggling to eat and survive at a time where we'll likely mint our first trillionaire in our lifetimes. This simply can't continue.
I'm personally for outing wealthy and powerful pedophiles who are meaningfully making all of our lives worse to accrue completely unnecessary extra wealth.
Maxwell had been stealing from his worker's pension fund and it was all starting to come out. It is plausible that he killed himself to avoid the consequences. He was a monster.
The people he robbed in that fraud were regular Joes who were cheated out of their pensions, not some kind of shadow-government-global-conspiracy types who have the means to remote-program your toaster to kill you.
Him killing himself is not the most surprising way out of that situation.
First, extremely wealthy people are by and large sociopaths. It's how they get rich. They will never view themselves as responsible or deserving or prosecution. Many are so rich they never consider getting prosecuted a realistic possibility. They will use various legal means to hide assets from being reclaimed by victims. Alan Bond, an Australian entrepreneur, also raided pension funds (which he ultimately went to jail for) but he mysteriously got divorced from his wife (who got a large property settlement) before it all went south and he stayed on good terms with her even after the divorce. Weird, huh?
Second, it's weird that nobody on his yacht noticed he was gone. For hours. That... just doesn't make sense if you know how luxury yachts work. The principal or the owner will dictate the entire schedule of the boat. If they get up at 6am, staff will get up at 5am to make sure their needs are being met. Beverages, breakfast, whatever. At all times the bridge will be manned (ie have someone on watch) who will be looking out for hazards but also at cameras on the boat. They are on alert for things like a fire breaking out or a VIP being up so they can alert other staff.
So could he have slipped through that net to throw himself overboard? Sure, it's possible. It's not icnredibly likely however. Also, is that how a rich and powerful man who was once an arms dealer commits suicide? Again, it's possible but it doesn't seem like the most likely method.
Lastly, if you're going to kill somebody but don't want it to be seen as a murder, this tops the list of how you'd do it. Why? Because, being in the water is going to wash away evidence and there are multiple ways of inducing a heart attack that are essentially undetectable (eg potassium overdose). And the delay in the body being found will likely get rid of any potential evidence there too.
The whole thing just stinks to high heaven.
I also don't believe Epstein was murdered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there's no such evidence of the murder claims. More to the point, the onus is on people making such claims to provide the evidence, not everyone else to disprove it.
But Robert Maxwell's history is well-documented and verifiable. And there's so much evidence that Epstein was mysteriously well-connected. The jobs he got. A match teacher at a prestigious school without a college degree. Power of attorney over Leslie Wexner's assets. The access he had to the wealthy, world leaders and academics. The fact that nobody really knows how he made his money. He's been dubbed a financier but this just isn't documented. There are thousands of bank accounts that haven't been scrutinized for where money was going and why.
And of course Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of trafficking people to... absolutely no one. Nobody has been named let alone charged. Her conditions on jail aren't appropriate for someone with her charges. She has a bunch of privileges in a Club Fed prison she shouldn't be in. The president fired the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York so only his former personal lawyers met with Maxwell for a proffer session.
And of course the connections to intelligence agencies and certain governments is both entirely believable and it fits a ton of evidence. There are credible claims why this is why he got the most lenient sweetheart plea agreement in 2006 despite Palm Beach police having the testimony of dozens of underage victims.
And perhaps the end. If its as serious as you claim it is nothing will come out of it.
can you give examples?
A lot of the posts listed there are: * obvious joke/sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek etc * taken out of context, or editorialised to similar effect (e.g. missing nuance that often exists in the same thread) * based on the disbelief or disapproval of equally unqualified reddit-bros * flagged/dead or heavily downvoted, the opposite of being 'encouraged'
In other words, a lot of low effort 'gotcha' point scoring against alleged 'tech-bros' which may or ma not mean everyone in HN is a SV start-up pitcher, or that no one really know what a tech-bro is.
If you think this is possibly true, I think we are far apart the discussion wouldn't go anywhere. Not a judgement, just trying to be better about my online engagement style.
My perception is a 'tech-bro' is someone in a tech hub (i.e. SV) with access to large amounts of capital (e.g. VC funding), likely involved in start-ups, or with some sway in tech companies (the prototype is often Elon Musk, et al); and their tendency to treat technology as a cure-all, especially in naïve or overoptimistic way, overestimating their own grasp of technology, or applications of technology, to various pursuits. There might also be a machoistic 'frat' element to it as well. A large group within HN perhaps, but probably not a majority of HN-ers.
This definition is not a million miles away from the sentiment of 'I could build that in a weekend' from the dev-side, or 'I just had a great idea (a clone of something well know etc) - you implement it, I'll be compensated equally as the "ideas guy"' from the biz-end.
In contrast, I think some (per r/SHNS) believe a 'tech-bro' is any man with a background in tech (usually software, maybe hardware), and hence most (the majority of) of the male population (still significant majority..) of HN.
By this definition, we aren't a million miles away from the gendered insult/accusation of 'mansplaining', which is basically arrogance, but when a man does it (or specifically, in respect to a woman), with the implication of them misogynistically underestimating women; Not clear if there is an implication that they otherwise treat other men differently - most anecdotes cover the former case without establishing a baseline of behaviour/arrogance.
What I'm saying is, as the term is weaponised, there is a scope-creep in direction of greatest utility / weaponised potential - It's inconvenient to establish someone is actually involved in the tech industry, SV-culture or tech-start-up-mentality, such as to critique those things in any relevant or substantial way, so instead any rando is a 'tech-bro' purely because they post on HN, i.e. HN-er == tech-bro, and it just become bashing men in tech; From my perspective 'man involved in technology', generalised across all tech-scene and cultures, isn't a meaningful or relevant distinction or discussion.
Thank you for sea lioning techbros though this was beautiful.
Also, it appears that tclancy is also male, so I don't think it qualifies on that count either.
As for the accusation of sea-lioning, assuming this definition:
"..a form of online harassment where someone persistently and politely pesters
a person with a relentless stream of questions and requests for evidence, all
while feigning sincerity and ignorance"
No, the purpose of sarcasm (and what distinguishes it from mere irony is having this purpose) is to mock or inflict emotional pain.
It may involve humor (irony, which sarcasm is a specific use of, is often, but not always, humorous), but that is not the purpose of sarcasm.
I just hope that the fallout doesn't begin and end with Prince Andrew and Larry Summers.
But I believe there are some subject matters including sexual assault and more specifically pedophilia that are pretty much never in good taste or useful to parody. Apparently this position is somewhat outspoken here.
Swift's Modest Proposal mentions eating babies which is very obviously an extreme behavior that is not tolerated by anyone anywhere, which is a distinct contrast to sexual assault which has victims in the millions if not billions.
Also just to note that the comment I replied to is now dead and flagged, so I guess I'm not the only one with these opinions.
I don’t even know how to answer that question.
> The things I’m listing are occupying virtually none of the national focus right now, for example.
Have you forgotten why the government was shut down last month?
What an embarrassing comment. I hope you don't mind me linking this back to you once the files are released in full.
My gut feeling is also that its been largely overblown, and releasing the files might actually take some of the wind out of the conspiracy theories built on the lack of this data.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45983044 and marked it off topic.
That's NYT-speak for "they joked crudely and overtly about pressuring the woman into unwilling sex". You can dump the New York Times and read competent writing here:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/11/17/summers-epstei...
> "Summers went on to describe what he saw as his “best shot”: that the woman finds him “invaluable and interesting” and concludes “she can’t have it without romance / sex.”"
I think it remarkable how the NYT buries (far down on the page), and CNBC omits altogether, the underlying story about what Larry Summers was actually doing. CNBC euphemizes the whole thing away to vapor (there were mails—the end). These aren't good expositions.
(Speaking of the NYT' coverage, there's a new revelation one of their reporters actually helped Epstein evade scrutiny—it's another bit from the recently-disclosed email tranches. Their reporter Landon Thomas secretly tipped off Epstein that one of his NYT coworkers was "digging around" into Epstein—even gave Epstein the guy's name).
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3m5hn... ("Fall 2017: Then-NYT reporter literally warning Epstein that someone is "digging around again.")
What undergraduate? According to the link you provide, she graduated in 2004 and was the subject of discussion between Epstein and Summers in 2018.
Now, just for certain ex-Brit colonies to follow their example! Quick... who can think of a popular leader who is, ehhhm, quite intricately linked to the same, ehh, gentleman with pretty specific tastes?
Anyone?
We in western democracies used to regard with disdain those corrupt, ridiculous leadership figures in so-called banana republics and third-world dictatorships, with their openly corrupt dealings and amoral excesses.
Now that the moral posturing of the west is unraveling, the question is really what comes next. Fukuyama talked about western liberal democracy being the "end of history", but it is more and more evident that this is a system ripe for disruption.
Not that I wholly disagree, but in the interests of robust conversation, I feel compelled to ask:
When?
Like this most recent headline from AppleInsider:
"Cook controversially dines with Saudi Crown Prince at White House"
Now, I'm no Saudi Crown Prince stan, but would the word 'controversially' have been used if Cook dined with Biden - who funded and supported a genocide, in which hundreds of journalists were killed? Why was the word 'controversially' not used to refer to also being at the table with Trump there?
Yes, it's controversial that Cook had dinner with the Saudi Crown Prince. In my view it's even more controversial to be having dinner with Trump.
This is just the most recent headline I can give as an example. But there are many like this.
We can be better than that, it's just no surprise when we're not, because we historically have not been.
There's nothing that quite makes me feel like humanity has undergone speciation than the fact that this STILL HAS TO BE FUCKING SPELLED OUT FOR PEOPLE.
Hero worship is sycophancy of the highest order. Ugh, and I know you're so right.
That's Barack Obama. Among other things, he's not 80 and still has the vigor of youth. Clinton is just old at this point.
I think the real question is why didn't the Biden administration release the files. How many very powerful people left and right are in there?
If I had to guess it's because there's nothing incriminating about Trump in them. Otherwise we all know they would have been leaked a long time ago.
This will also be Trump's (false) reason for not releasing them.
I suspect it's been the false reason the whole time.
No one is investigating anything, only wiping hard drives and tying up loose ends
Huh? Bill Clinton has been a relatively invisible ex-president compared to the other modern ones (aka Carter & Obama, Biden hasn't been gone long enough for data).
Perhaps that's because he didn't want to overshadow Hillary, but it's at least partly because of the Lewinsky affair.