Why are people not protesting ? Businesses should stop buying Microsoft licenses and that should force Microsoft to remove bill gates completely from the company. Same should be done with Musk, trump etc.
Why are people not protesting ? Businesses should stop buying Microsoft licenses and that should force Microsoft to remove bill gates completely from the company. Same should be done with Musk, trump etc.
Yes, ‘if’. Spoiler: He never did.
Never is a pretty strong word, plenty of powerful people got roped into Epstein’s prostitution ring and continued associating with him long after the fact. I want to clarify my stance that while Bill needs to see trial over these allegations, especially if minors were involved, that it does not cancel out the good things his foundation has done for the world.
Agreed. So why bring it up?
It’s one thing to say “This man is a criminal who needs to be brought to trial” and a completely different thing to say “This man is pure unconscionable evil.”
Tons of racists and conspiracy theorists have been railing on Bill Gates for decades because of how he’s spent his money: saving dark skinned people.
I understand the principle you’re applying (that a person’s positive and negative actions can be judged separately). My question was more about the conversational relevance.
In a discussion specifically about serious criminal allegations, introducing a person’s philanthropic work often feels like a deflection tactic, whether intended or not. It shifts the focus from ‘Did this bad thing happen?’ to ‘How do we weigh the good against the bad?’
So my ‘why bring it up?’ was really asking: In a conversation about alleged sex crimes, what is the purpose of directing attention to his charity work? Is it to ensure the allegations aren’t overstated, or is it to steer the discussion away from the allegations themselves?
That’s the distinction I’m trying to understand.
I feel like the best possible outcomes for all people do not involve villainizing Bill Gates, and in fact doing so can lead people down paths to right wing extremism. He got an STD from a prostitute according to an unsent draft of an email, if it’s true then it makes him a bad person and criminally liable, it does not make him a villain.
I understand your concern about backlash. But doesn’t that approach inadvertently prioritize Gates’ reputation over the gravity of the allegations themselves? If the allegations are true, the victims and the pursuit of justice deserve the central focus. Introducing his charity work, even to prevent ‘villainization,’ inherently shifts that focus. It suggests the story about Bill Gates is more important than the facts of the case.
No, I said he needs to go to trial for this and I’ve been consistent about that message. If you’re interpreting something opposite from what I’m saying, then perhaps you’re arguing more with a figment of your own imagination than me.
You’re misunderstanding my point. I have no doubt about your position on a trial. My critique is not about your legal conclusion; it’s about your rhetorical choice.
You simultaneously said ‘he needs a trial’ and ‘don’t forget his philanthropy.’ My argument is that the second part (however well-intentioned) functions to change the subject. In a discussion about alleged sex crimes, any addition of unrelated positive accomplishments (be it philanthropy, art, or scientific work) shifts the frame from the victims and the allegations to the balancing of a person’s moral ledger.
You can believe both things, but introducing the philanthropy into this specific conversation is what I’m questioning. That’s not a figment of my imagination; it’s a direct observation of your words. If you believe that addition is necessary, please justify it without retreating to your stance on a trial, which I already understand.
I don’t know enough about the whole Bill Gates tied into Epstein saga. But I will say this=> it kinda reads like “oh noez, I messed up, better do some good in the world to clean up my image preemptively”.
That kinda money just doesn’t happen squaky clean. It doesn’t. Visiting Epstein’s island… at that point he should’ve known he was treading onto the wrong side of history.
That’s nonsequitur to my comment, I’m saying despite his crimes and being a criminal, he is at least more moral than any other billionaire in existence, to say he has never had any conscience is not accurate.
Also, the new information released has, afaik, not mentioned any specifics about places, times, or identities of the girls involved, so as of yet we don’t know that he has ever been to the island.
"A very attractive Swedish woman and her daughter dropped by and I ended up staying there quite late,” Gates wrote in an email to colleagues after one of his meetings with Epstein, according to the New York Times.
And? What you said did neither argue what I said nor confirm.
Gates has provided the specific information you were not aware of.
The meeting with miss sweden and daughter was in 2011, not 2013, and Sweden is not Russian
This is an archived version without the paywall: https://archive.is/20251221221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html
And ice cream does not taste like mash potatoes.