I am curious, who is “them” in your statement and how does opposing all three of those things inherently cause me to give up my bargaining power?

Interesting phrasing. A phrasing that assumes assumptions on my part. So … what social credit system DOES exist.

It is possible to oppose all three things. It is possible to simultaneously oppose the Social Credit System in China, the Credit Score system in the United States, and the elites connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

Do you believe in free association? Do you think people should be forced to associate with people they do not want to? Suppose someone got off legally due to a technicality but anyone paying attention with common sense knew that person was guilty? Should I be forced to associate with such a person? Suppose one of those people applies for a job as science teacher for a middle school; should that middle school be forced to hire such a person?

Unfortunately that is true. This is why it is even MORE important for private individuals and organizations to do what they can with the limited nongovernmental power they have.

Judges and juries are for dolling out legal punishment, such as prison time. Private organizations run by ethcal adults can judge for themselves the very obvious connections and guilt or innocence of people they choose to hire or associate with (or not associate with).

If the communication was prior to Epstein’s conviction I might be inclined to provide some leeway – all else being equal. If the communication was after Epstein’s conviction they should be very firm.