guesswho
9mo ago
I was radicalized by interacting with the kind of progressive who calls people racist for not believing Jussie Smollet and then refuses to acknowledge the case ever again once it becomes apparent that they've made a booboo.
You honestly believe that is the most straightforward and parsimonious reading of the plain text of that comment?
That in a single sentence which references a police case in the first half of the sentence as the central matter at issue, and then uses the words 'the case' in the second half of the sentence, they are awkwardly referring to 'the case of the guy who was rude on the internet' rather than the police case the sentence is about.
That's what you're going to go with?
Your answer will tell me a lot about whether to treat your criticisms as good-faith in the future.
guesswho
9mo ago
You not saying it, just implying it favors the continuation of structures that do it...
Literally what are you talking about, the second post is referring to a highschool debate, nothing about that comment invokes the Smollet case or anyone on the board or anything related to the claim against me here. I would accuse you of taking me out of context to try to trick people, except I think you're competent to do a better job if that's what you were trying to do and wouldn't link to the source, so I'm honestly baffled.
Once again: the accusation was 'calls people racist for not believing Jussie Smollet'. Not, 'says that the steelman position that some highschool students were grasping at is that classical liberalism is not well-suited to dismantle existing historical elements of structural racism'.
I believe you can tell the difference.
guesswho
9mo ago
Replying to myself to copy/paste one of those long posts, in case anyone is interested. Huge wall of text warning, with a lot of stuff that's probably too basic for the audience here:
This was in response to someone basically asking 'Wouldn't elections work better if only people who are educated on the issues and know enough to make good decisions were allowed to vote? Isn't it crazy that we let stupid and ignorant people make these decisions when they can't possibly know enough to decide well?'
My response:
So this is a really basic research methods question that scientists often have to deal with, mainly concerned with how to find a weak signal in a noisy data set.
Lets say that there's some 'correct' result for everyone election, the result that will lead to the best outcomes for the most number of people based on each of their individual preferences and needs, or whatever. The question is, what is the best way to arrive at that outcome as often as possible, or to arrive as closes as possible to it every time?
There are two main reasons this is a difficult problem. The first is that no one can see the future and it's impossible for anyone to truly know what the long-term consequences of any particular electoral outcome will be. The second is that it's impossible for anyone to truly know and understand the needs and preferences of all 350 million citizens and determine what the best outcome for all of them would be, even if they could predict it.
This creates a ton of uncertainty and disagreement about what the best electoral outcome is (who people should vote for), as we can see clearly at every election cycle.
In terms of statistical analysis, we would call this disagreement and uncertainty 'noise' - lots of disparate, high-variance, semi-random data about how people think everyone should vote. And we would call the 'correct' electoral outcome the 'signal' - the true result that we're trying to discover.
In this framing, an election is just a measurement, designed to try to capture the signal, and filter out the noise. Our elections tend to have a low signal-to-noise ratio, because it's so hard for anyone to know what the actual best outcome would be, and there's so much disagreement about what we should do.
As it turns out, scientists have been dealing with this problem in all kinds of domains since the invention of statistics, and they have a good handle on what works and what doesn't.
What you're suggesting is, basically, take a smaller number of data points from a restricted domain (people who pass the test), which you believe to have much less noise (less misinformation) and a much stronger signal (better understanding).
This is a good method in many domains - physicists, for instance, will go to great lengths to reduce noise in their experiments by shielding equipment or working far underground, even if this is expensive and limits the amount of data they can gather. If they can eliminate enough noise, they only need a very little data to confirm their hypotheses, because those hypotheses are very precise, and the systems they deal with are well-understood.
But the danger with restricting your domain and excluding subjects based on a specific criterion is that it can introduce bias into your measurements, leading you to very accurately measure the wrong signal. Physicists don't have to worry about this much, because physics works the same underground and behind shielding as it doe anywhere else. But any science that has to deal with people has to worry about this a lot, because people are very easily biased, and different groups of people can vary from each other in all kinds of ways.
In your example, it may be that people who pass your test know more about the world overall, but have some specific set of strong, incorrect beliefs that is currently in fashion among the educated classes, or was introduced to the curriculum they tend to study by the agencies that make that curriculum, or that concerns areas of study or ways of life (like plumbing or farm work) that the educated tend to have little contact with. And even if they have no systematically mistaken beliefs, their priorities and needs may still be systematically divergent from the rest of the general population - they may not appreciate the true needs of the poor, they may prioritize art and science over industry and safety, they may fall preferentially along one political or religious alignment, etc. Basically, as long as they have any systematic biases that make them different from the rest of the population, you cannot get the 'correct' signal from any type of measurement of them, because their 'signal' is something different that aligns with their biases. Their 'signal' may still be pretty good, but it can't ever be 'correct'.
How do scientists who deal with these types of problems try to measure the real signal amidst tons of noise, then? The answer is random sampling of lots and lots and lots of data points, averaged out with each other to converge on the correct signal.
See, when you have enough data points, it doesn't really hurt you much to add a 'noisy' data point (ie someone who knows nothing and acts randomly). Because that noise will tend to be randomly distributed, and cancel out with someone else who was randomly noisy in the other direction when you average everything together. So letting people with 'zero knowledge' vote is not a problem. The only type of voter that's a problem is one with 'negative information' - beliefs and preferences that actively drive them away from the correct signal. And even those people will tend to cancel out with people who have negative knowledge going the other direction... if you sample from every walk of life and every group, instead of limiting yourself to a single specific group with a tendency towards one specific flavor of negative knowledge.
Because the thing about a true signal is, that we expect it to have some impact on most data points, even if those points themselves have huge variance. Like if you give all the kids in one school platform shoes with 2" heels and measure their heights, there will still be lots of variance in height and there will be tons of kids in that school who are shorter than tons of kids in another school even with their shoes on, but if you take the average height it will still come out 2 inches taller, because the shoes still increased everyone's random noisy heights at once.
With elections, it's a bit more complicated, but it's the same idea. Maybe one person is an idiot about everything except farm policies, but they can tell a good farm policy from a bad one and that true information affects their vote. Maybe another person knows nothing about policy, but is a really good judge of character and will tend to vote for more honest and benevolent candidates. Maybe a third person has been through civil forfeiture and understands the reality of that situation much better than the average person, and lets that influence their vote when politicians make a proposal about it. etc.
Each of those people may have a lot of 'noise' in their heads about every topic other than the one they're good at, but that noise will be mostly random across individuals and will cancel out. As long as they have some knowledge or understanding that gives them good, 'correct' beliefs about the way to vote, and those beliefs influence their actual vote in some way, then that means they're being influenced by the 'signal' and will be adding true information about the signal to our data set when we measure them.
This is how psychologists, social scientists, and other scientists that deal with people and other complex and unpredictable phenomena, almost always design their studies: random sampling of as much data as possible, with statistical analysis to find the signal among the noise. It's simply the most practical and reliable way to go about things with situations this complex. And in the case of elections, that translates to allowing everyone to vote, and encouraging as many people to vote as possible.
It sounds counter-intuitive when you think about a single idiot voting. But when you think about that idiot as someone who only has one tiny spark of good information, and then think about the electoral process as adding the tiny sparks of tens of millions of people together to illuminate the truth, it makes a lot more sense.
guesswho
9mo ago
How can people simultaneously defend democracy and believe that the average person is the cognitive equivalent of a fast food public wifi network?
I've made a few effortposts on this topic, ussually around the question of 'shouldn't we just let only the smart people vote?'
The basic idea is that if you have a true and powerful signal and a large enough amount of data collection, you can be ok even in a system with humongous amounts of noise.
It's ok if the average voter is so dumb that their voting behavior is near-random. So long as it's not completely random and they're probabilisticly influenced by the true signal of 'good candidate' at least a little, then if we average over tens of millions of voters we can recover that signal with high likelihood.
(whereas choosing any nonrandom subsample of the population to do the choosing, like 'the smart/informed people', is more likely to produce an artifact since their homogeneity makes them more likely to be biased in the same direction by the same factors)
guesswho
9mo ago
Removing books from a school curriculum cannot in any reasonable way be considered "banning"
'Deplatforming is not censorship' is a stance I held and defended vociferously during the Cancel Culture debates, but I think the tide has sailed on that one, as they say.
guesswho
9mo ago
Well, what's true is, 'arguments as soldiers' is partially an inevitable result of our two-party system, and in some cases is actually a sadly effective and pragmatic tactic that you're sort of forced to play into if you don't want the other side to beat you with it.
To whit: You can say that the Red/Blue team dichotomy is artificial, but the Democrats/Republicans dichotomy is not. People trying to have political stances and agendas that don't fall along that dichotomy may be perfectly valid and reasonable and good, but they're also in a very real way irrelevant to teh exercise of power. The person appointing the next Supreme Court Justice is going to have either a (D) or an (R) next to his name, and that's what will determine how the game of politics cashes out in actually affecting people's lives for the next 50 years.
So: Sure, Moms for Liberty and the Ron Desantis (or whoever else you want to use as a stand-in for the 'teachers are groomers' movement) are different people with different personal politics, so to an extent it's not surprising or scandalous at all if their rhetoric disagrees with each other in fundamentally contradictory ways.
ON THE OTHER HAND: They are both republican-aligned movements that are trying to promote Republican policies and put more (R)s next to more names in government.
If the broader republican movement is trying to convince us they're right using two different arguments, and those two arguments directly contradict each other, doesn't that mean that there must be some flaw in their platform, the the broader ideology overall is inconsistent and misleading in some way, that something is rotten in Denmark, and anyone who is on the R side should be noticing that some of their soldiers are pointing their guns the wrong way and get confused and self-reflective about it?
Even if the two arguments are reasonable on their own and are aligned with the ideology of the individual person making them, the fact that both are then being taken up and spun into the larger Republican narrative alongside each other, indicates a flaw in that platform.
(and, I shouldn't even have to say this, but obviously this all applies ceteris parabis to Democrats and the left, this is a general problems with politics)
guesswho
9mo ago
This is something people actually claim in earnest about their outgroup, particularly when their outgroup is the alt-right or something similar.
To kill the frog: yes, it's the type of claim that people who read the NYTimes believe, and the joke is that I can trick them into being nicer to you with this obviously dumb narrative because they only operate on pre-approved narratives and this is one they're programmed to accept.
darwin2500 was a notorious troll who repeatedly refused to engage honestly when it became clear that he was wrong about something.
When it became clear to the people who already disagreed with me, sure.
But don't expect me to be persuaded by the one argument you find persuasive, any more than you are persuaded when I make the one argument I find persuasive.
Obviously you think you are presenting arguments and evidentiary claims sufficient to justify your belief, that's why you hold that belief. But the people who don't hold that belief didn't just tragically fail to be exposed to those arguments and claims, they're generally aware of them and still find the balance of evidence to go the other way. I know that about you, you should know that about me.
I acknowledge when someone here convinces me of something I didn't believe before, but it doesn't happen all that often because the disagreements are much deeper than that.
as far as I could tell.
Yes, this has always been the central problem between you and me.
Others seem to have gotten the joke, you take it as a directed sleight instead, and at this point I don't have much hope of convincing you otherwise. We've danced this dance a lot and it's tiring.
I will, however, keep saying what is true about my meaning and intention, whether or not it convinces you.
guesswho
9mo ago
What I'm being accused of:
and then refuses to acknowledge the case ever again
Even if you weren't satisfied with the depths of my grovelling at the time, would you agree that making a post where I said I was wrong about the case contradicts the claim that I refused to ever acknowledge it again?
In any case, what's the response you're looking for with this comment?
I'm not particularly looking for any specific response, I'm just saying the things I think are true in response to accusations against me. I don't think there's any response that 'fixes' everything, and I suspect our disagreements on matters of fact are too broad for such a response to be honest if it happened. I'm just saying my piece.
If you want to ask what outcomes I would like from this, it would be great if you would refrain from falsely accusing me of endorsing fake rape accusations (hah), jumping in to conversations to talk about how awful and dishonest I am and then holding court on that topic throughout a 50-post-long comment chain, pulling up ancient comments by me to use as examples of how awful progressives are, and so forth and so on.
(I also remember you as someone who did a ton of this back on /r/SCC and /r/culturewarroundup and /r/themotte too, which is informing a lot of my strong feelings about this. But admittedly in my memory from back then you sort of blend into the group of 'generic perpetual rude antagonists' with Jtarrou, nybbler, TPO, etc. etc. So, sorry if you didn't do that and I'm thinking of one of them, in that world this response would be slightly hyperbolic towards you personally and more about a general phenomenon I experience from many sources)
Of course, I don't actually expect you to stop doing that stuff.
Regardless of how fair or true or within-the-rules-for-this-site those types of posts are, they're just fucking weird. It feels really creepy to be such an extensive topic of conversation among strangers, to know that people are keeping tabs and grudges and ledgerbooks on me that they are just waiting to pull out at any moment, that they seem to think they have some kind of relationship with me (adversarial, but real and persistent) when I feel nothing of the sort towards them and just want to have anonymous discussions of ideas.
What I want to do is just scream 'Stop thinking about me! Stop talking about me! I don't know you!'. Debunk my ideas and arguments if you think they're wrong, stop talking to me if you don't think it's worth your time, please stop treating me as a character in stories you tell.
But it's a free country and a free-speech-motivated board. If that's how you enjoy spending your time then that's your right, if that's how you relate to arguments and ideas and discussions then that's a legitimate form of human experience and you probably can't just flip it off. And I always have the option of staying gone next time if the creepiness I feel from it outweighs the benefit to me of the good conversations I do sometimes have here.
BUT: if you and other mods are going to keep talking about me like that at regular intervals, and ignoring other people who do so, then I'd like it if I stopped getting modded for 'antagonism' when making drastically less pointed and accusatory comments.
I don't really expect that to happen either, because it seems like there's a standard firmly in place by which me directing any detectable hostility at others is antagonism and people directing infinite hostility at me is not, and I'm sure each mod individually has a reason why those standards are fair in their own head that they firmly believe is true and fair. Maybe they're even right, and it's the type of thing that's hard to see when you're the one getting the spiky end of the stick every day.
So yeah, if the question is 'what do I want and expect to get', the answer is probably 'nothing, I'm just defending myself and speaking honestly'.
What's your understanding of events, and how does it differ from the description above?
Having this discussion in a parallel comment chain, going to keep it localized there. You can join it if you want, but it feels pretty straightforward to me.
normally I would do that by responding directly to your statements, but given past experience I have some doubts that would be productive.
That link is to you responding to someone who is not me, I was never aware of that conversation. What was the point of the link?
When do you personally think the left has ever lied about Trump?
Just this week I saw a bunch of articles pointing to him slurring his speech slightly or confusing two names and saying that's definitely dementia and he'll be cognitively declining and falling apart before election day. While I don't rule out early-onset dementia for either candidate given their ages, those are the types of mistakes anyone will make if they talk in public for dozens of hours a week and are not any strong evidence of the claims being made.
When do you personally think Trump has lied about the left, if ever?
And, don't you think it's ironic how you can't help but seize on this statement where I opened myself to the possibility of vulnerability, as a way to 'put me in the hotseat' at the end of your long post about how reasonable and constructive you want to be, especially the part where you said:
If that model is correct, the next logical play would be for you to ignore this message and focus on the lowest-quality and most angry responses in the thread.
guesswho
9mo ago
as per any slander, it's a bunch of lies and mischaracterization built around a true seed of a real event
Thanks for pointing out the seed. Now, the actual claim being made:
I was radicalized by interacting with the kind of progressive who calls people racist for not believing Jussie Smollet and then refuses to acknowledge the case ever again once it becomes apparent that they've made a booboo.
Nowhere there or anywhere else do I call anyone racist for doubting the claim, or call anyone on the board racist. In fact, in the thread you link I have a later post explicitly saying it would be stupid to call anyone racist for those reasons, and I was asking for the people who were calling people racist in an analogized incident about a highschool debate to stop calling people racist using that type of logic.
And we have had this discussion with me talking about my mistake of getting drawn in and believing there must be some truth to the story several times on the old subreddit (mostly that I didn't think cops would fail to correct misstatements about gross physical evidence of injury, updated on that now). The idea that I haven't is, again, just a meme spread by some people who seem really devoted to cultivating ad hominems instead of addressing my actual arguments, for whatever reason.
So, like I said: the core of a true event, but then the parts that are actually the most damning accusations are just lies.
Standard tactics which I would expect people around here to recognize by now, but no, not when the target is chosen properly.
guesswho
9mo ago
This feels like such a stretch.
The central innovation of the Florida school curriculum lockdown controversy was the right starting to call anyone on the left who tried to help trans teens or teach anyone that gay people are a thing that exists 'groomers'.
Furnishing minors with alcohol and/or drugs so that you can lure them to your house and have drunken parties with them is quintessential actual grooming behavior, like, it's literally what actual groomers do to actual minors to actually statutorily rape them.
Which, I'm not saying that full sequence of events necessarily happened here, but come on. If your side is going to make the entire argument center on who is or isn't a groomer, 'my boyfriend and I throw drunken parties every week for local minors where we get wasted with them and get in psychical scuffles with them' cannot possibly be spun as a good look.
guesswho
9mo ago
I have seen responsible adults who set up safe and sane parties for the younger people in their lives that include some alcohol and looking the other way on pot to dissuade them from going to more dangerous parties elsewhere. This is generally good and fine.
I have also seen adults who set up ragers with so much alcohol and drugs and party equipment that the young people in their orbit are inevitably drawn in, at times and frequencies where no other alternate 'dangerous' party would have otherwise existed, with the intent to party with the young people to relive their youths and feel still young and active and desirable, often involving some level of sexual predation or at least inappropriateness.
And then there's a spectrum between those ends, of course. And the central question seems to be where Schillinger and her boyfriend fall on that spectrum, with all the colorful details added onto the basic fact of the party existing being evidence towards the bad end of the scale.
Of course enemies will preferentially leak and frame details to make it look as bad as possible, but if true, the 'police being called multiple times in a few weeks' thing seems objectively verifiable and pretty decisive here. Parents who are just trying to keep their kids away from other dangerous parties by hosting parties themself don't need boozed-up-minors call-the-police-for-niose-complaints parties every week, kids should not normally have other opportunities to attend parties of that magnitude every week regardless.
But, you know, we don't actually know all the real details, just 2 competing motivated narratives, so who knows.
guesswho
9mo ago
(you did that),
I of course didn't, but since that's a meme started on here by my #1 long-term stalker who also happens to be a mod, I don't expect people to be much interested in being careful about the facts of the matter.
(as per any slander, it's a bunch of lies and mischaracterization built around a true seed of a real event. You'd think 8 years of seeing the left lie about Trump and Trump lie about the left would make the pattern clear to people discussing those events every day, but w/e)
guesswho
9mo ago
I wouldn't normally report a comment like that (if I did, your queue would get pretty clogged up). I decided to do it after posting because I realized it was unfair to accuse the mods of a double standard when they could just be unaware of that comment.
I don't actually want you to mod people who are mean to me, but I do want you to hold me to the same standards you hold them.
The way you instead agree with them pretty much confirms my expectations, but w/e.
guesswho
9mo ago
Good thing the mods don't consider this type of post antagonistic in any way...
guesswho
9mo ago
Are you really serious about this?
Set aside whether I can state my actual opinions or beliefs safely, now good-natured, ironic, self-deprecating jokes are going to be taken as sneering and antagonistic by the mods as well?
I just got a day ban for I have no idea what, ignored it, now a warning for a joke that's obviously aimed at the foibles of my own tribe (The signifigance of choosing NY Times for the bit cannot be lost on anyone here, surely?), and which others are engaging with in that spirit.
If certain mods have made up their mind or are going to be swayed by number of downvotes and reports, then there's no behavior I can take that protects me. Sure, 'don't link to meme images' is an easy arbitrary rule to follow, I can remember that. But these last 2 times have been complete surprises that I cannot understand the motivation behind, and could not have predicted in any way.
We've transitioned from 'I expect to be held to a different standard, but if I keep my head down enough and don't make my points with the same tone that others use against me and my side, I'll probably be ok' to 'I literally cannot predict what the mods will interpret as antagonistic anymore, I may as well just post honestly and see what happens'.
So, yeah.
guesswho
9mo ago
No category label is ever fully accurate when applied to a person. But of the handful of major political labels we currently acknowledge in the US, it's the group I'm most likely to try to support, sure.
guesswho
9mo ago
occurring during the middle of the day in a public space where a simple scream would have place Donald Trump in cuffs and away for a few years.
You have a really different impression of how the legal system treated famous rich men in the 90s than I do.
This was around the same time as the OJ trial. If they can't convict a rich, famous man with the mountain of evidence present in that case and a nearly-decapitated body on the line, I don't see why they would bother to listen to some woman whining about getting fingered in a dressing room.
Maybe I'm wrong but I really believe the 90s were a different time to an almost impossible-to-convey degree, especially when it came to women being assaulted or abused. Even Anita Hill was turned into an attention-seeking floozy by the popular media of the day, every woman who got into the news accusing a famous or powerful man of something bad almost uniformly had their lives destroyed and stories inverted by the tabloid press of the day.
guesswho
9mo ago
I have yet to see any evidence of Trump's legal team in any case being in any way competent.
guesswho
9mo ago
When NY Times starts investigating this page and wants to interview me as the one sympathetic-to-their-audience 'progressive' venturing into the lions den, I promise to tell them y'all are just misguided victims of radicalizing social media algorithms. Probably the best I can do.
guesswho
9mo ago
But it is inappropriate to punish someone for protesting their innocence.
I agree, but I really, really don't think that's a fair summary of what is being charged as defamation here.
I am going to just admit up front that I have not taken time to hunt down every speech and Truthbomb (or w/e they're called) or other public statement Trump has made about this which was cited as defamatory and judge them myself. If you have, you can pull rank here.
But my impression from summaries I've seen is that it was much more of an attack on her character and motives and person, made repeatedly and as part of stump speeches and campaign rhetoric and as political strategy, on a way that painted her as a political actor and possibly part of a conspiracy, in away that turned his supporters against her in ways that upended her life in major ways, and made her feel/be unsafe.
Just saying that you are innocent shouldn't be defamation, but that doesn't mean you can't do other things to defame someone at the same time as you claim your innocence.
guesswho
9mo ago
Ok, I think that's illegitimate in itself - these impressions of these people don't come from nowhere, the things they are built from are legit evidence - but fine, we can ignore that.
But the trial itself contains plenty of evidence beyond that one paragraph you cite as the only thing we're supposed to judge on.
Absent literally anything other than the written statements, sure, both seems plausible, both are things that can happen. Unless you're finding logical inconsistencies, things that are actually impossible, it's a bad idea to put too much weight on a single paragraph-or-two written statement... people vary too much in how good they are at recounting things in a coherent narrative, weird or surprising things happen all the time in real life (authors always talk about how coincidences in real life wouldn't be plausible in fiction), all human memories are fallible and getting a detail or two wrong years later doesn't mean the incident didn't happen, etc.
You always need more evidence than that to make any kind of confident judgement, which is why there's an investigation and a trial where they bring out other evidence.
guesswho
9mo ago
I strongly believe that neither claim ought to be justiciable, both because they are old and ought to be out of the SoL
I think that is why Trump is not being criminally charged, but the defamation that he is being charged for is recent.
Do you think that's still improper, that if the matter of fact which the defamation centers on is outside SoL, the court shouldn't be allowed to say whether or not recent statements were defamatory?
Given that civil courts have a lower evidentiary burden to begin with, I don't think this naturally follows.
guesswho
9mo ago
Let's just get all the "but of course he did it, he's the type of guy, grab 'em by the pussy" stuff out of the way. "Reade is crazy, she's a Russian asset, it was all lies". Ignore all that. Try, as far as you can, to put the background and any opinions you have on X versus Y out of your mind. Just go by the statements of what was accused and alleged and no interpretation "well of course A is the type to do this so B is telling the truth but C is not the type so D is lying"... Again, no 'afterwards we learned this or we heard that', just judge the two accounts on what is said here and which you find credible, if either, or both, or none.
Why are we ignoring humongous amounts of Bayesian evidence here, exactly?
Yeah, if we just took the singular initial victim statement and judged the case based on how persuasive that was out of context, then we might judge a lot of cases differently. Probably we would find in favor of educated and well-spoken victims who know how to craft a persuasive narrative. That's not a good thing.
Why does Carroll get an $83 million payout for Trump saying she's a liar while Reade - doesn't?
Because one was defamed and one wasn't?
'That didn't happen' said a few times in response to questions isn't defamation. Taking time out in a bunch of your stump speeches and social media posts to call her a whackjob and crazy liar and say you never met her and fire up your followers to attack and harass her and ruin her career is defamation.
Like a lot of cases that come up here, the reason Trump gets a harsher sentence/any punishment at all is his own behavior around the event at question. Yes, there's a difference between discovering that you accidentally held onto some confidential documents, immediately notifying the relevant agencies to turn them over and ask if there's anything else you should do, and ordering your staff to do an internal audit to make sure it hasn't happened anywhere else, vs intentionally taking dozens of boxes of confidential documents to your home, bragging about it and showing them to people, denying it and lying repeatedly when the feds inquire about it, trying to cover them up and hiding more when the feds come to get them, and etc. etc. etc. Malicious intent matters for sentencing.
Sorry, which platforms that have zero children on them were people being deplatformed from?
More options
Context Copy link