ymeskhout
10mo ago
I appreciate the feedback but I'm not sure how to apply it. How would someone conduct a compound probability without examining individual elements? Not all of the elements were favorable to Epps either because he was charged with a crime while other prominent figures with comparable conduct (Nick Fuentes & Ali Alexander for example) were not. I'm open to suggestions for how to do a comparison differently.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
No reasons at all. Comparisons get less relevant the more distant they are but there's still some insight to be gleaned. Here's Tarrio's sentencing memos filed by prosecutors (includes all other codefendants) and the one filed by Tarrio's attorney.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Thanks for clearing it up, what edits should I make to my post to avoid giving other people the same wrong impression?
If there are no other comparable examples, then it's literally impossible to assert that Ray Epps was treated "unusually". I don't agree that there are no comparable examples, because I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the precision of a randomized controlled trial to ascertain how unusual a defendant's treatment is. So while we can't find a Ray Epps clone, it's still fair game to examine individuals who are close enough.
I looked some more and wish I found out about Ali Alexander earlier. He posted a video on January 7th saying "I did call for people to enter the US Capitol" and later during a livestream "I started a riot for the sitting president of the United States" (though he also admitted he's prone to exaggeration and hyperbole). He was never charged with a crime. A judge even examined his conduct and dismissed him from a civil lawsuit brought by Capitol Police officers because the judge ruled his speech did not rise to the level of incitement. Do you believe this guy is comparable enough to Ray Epps? Compared to Alexander, Epps was treated harshly.
There's more people who called for occupying the Capitol ahead of J6, like Matt Bracken who said "we will only be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington, occupying the entire area—if necessary, storming right into the Capitol. You know, we know the rules of engagement: If you have enough people, you can push down any kind of a fence or a wall." I don't know if Bracken was ever on site so it's not directly comparable to Epps, but Bracken never being charged with a crime is one more data point on the comparison board.
I made a bird's eye view comparison by contrasting Epps to all other J6 defendants and nothing stood out. I then tried to make a more direct comparison to individual cases and nothing stands out there either. So overall I see no reason to believe that Ray Epps was treated with unusual anything. Do you think that's an unreasonable conclusion?
ymeskhout
10mo ago
If that's what cjet is indeed referring to then oops, my bad, I didn't mean to imply that and I'm curious how that misinterpretation occurred with what I wrote and what edits I should make to rectify that. I thought "encouraged others to march towards the Capitol but did not enter themselves" was clear enough but I'm open to edit suggestions. I'm also open to other individuals who serve as better comparisons.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Could you please show me where you actually did this? I gave the post I was responding to the and the links a few looks, but I couldn't find any where you went through the claims made in the Revolver piece in great detail.
I was addressing whether or not Epps was treated unusually as a defendant, and I examined that by comparing him to all other J6 defendants: "Ray Epps pleading guilty to misdemeanors (505 out of all 1,265 J6 defendants also did), avoiding jail time (282 out of 749 convicted J6 defendants also did), or avoiding pretrial detention (70% of J6 defendants also did) seemed unusual." What claim within the Revolver piece addresses whether or not Epps was treated unusually that I did not address?
I'd just like to add as an aside that I don't think "being the victim of a conspiracy theory" is actually what is responsible for his lenient sentencing - rather, it was due to him being a federal informant or otherwise working for the government.
Do you believe that the 37% of other convicted J6 defendants who also avoided jail time were also federal informants or otherwise working for the government?
In contrast, I've been repeatedly informed by "reliable sources" that what took place on January 6 was a violent insurrection that attempted to end our democracy, and is actually legally comparable to raising an army and literally waging war on the US government. The idea that people being mean on twitter could make up for that beggars belief.
Sure, that would beggar belief if it happened. I've seen no indication that's the case because plenty of other convicted J6 defendants avoided jail time despite not being the subject of a conspiracy theory. This is evidently not a material factor for sentencing purposes.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
and in fact deserve the chance to sue for millions.
Can you please explain how you think the civil court system works? In your mind, do you believe that a judge presiding over a criminal matter can "allow" civil suits to proceed? I'm especially very intensely curious about what role you think the DOJ plays in "allowing" suits to proceed.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
@ArjinFerman also
I don't want any ambiguity here, I never said or implied that Alex Jones "would do something like this" (I still don't know what is the 'something' you're referring to here), I never spoke of potential or possibilities about his conduct. The reason he came to mind is because I was trying to think of individuals comparable to Epps, and I first did so by deconstructing Epps's conduct into "He was on Capitol Grounds but did not enter, but encouraged others to enter". I figured finding someone who was caught on tape precisely asking people to enter was going to be a challenge, so I abstracted the latter factor into a more generalized "whipped up crowd to head towards the Capitol" to broaden the search. Alex Jones came to mind because he was there and I remembered him leading a "1776!" chant with a crowd. It's not going to be a perfect comparison, but I'm trying to do the work SlowBoy hasn't by proactively looking for individuals to compare Epps against, and I'm more than open to other suggestions.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Before I respond to any specifics I want to lay out a few general suppositions: I think it's totally reasonable, almost necessary, to believe that the FBI had informants in MAGA groups and at J6; J6 prosecutions (even if you think they're legitimate) have a strong political dimension.
Yes? I don't disagree, but don't know how that's relevant to whether Epps was treated with unusual leniency.
Let's concede that it's entirely possible Epps could really be innocent. We're all just filling in blanks here. But for the reasons already discussed, I do not find Epps' total innocence very likely.
Innocent of what? He already plead guilty.
Jones is not known to have been near the Capitol at all: he was speaking from Lafayette Square. This is in a different category from Epps, who was present at the Capitol and encouraging people to go in (while pointedly not going in himself). I don't think this is an apples-to-apples comparison.
That's totally fair that you don't think Alex Jones is a good comparison, so who would you propose comparing against? You can't say that someone was treated "unusually" unless you already have a comparison in mind, so who are you comparing Epps against?
In part because he was near the top of the FBI's J6 List until he wasn't. In part because he's a highly-visible face saying everything lefties have accused J6 of representing. He was an Oath Keepers chapter president. He he was on restricted Capitol Grounds. He fits the exact profile of people who have been otherwise severely charged.
I don't know what you mean by "near the top" except that he was one of the first to be put on the 'seeking information' list. Chronology does not determine severity, so why is this significant? What does it mean to have a highly-visible face? People know who he is because he received significant right-wing media attention, so is that your metric? What are lefties claiming J6 represents and how does Epps represent it? It's true that he used to be an Oath Keeper chapter president in 2011, why is that significant? It's true that he was on restricted Capitol Grounds, but so were up to 10,000 other people, so why is that significant? What exactly is the "exact profile" of people who were charged? Did you determine this profile by examining all 1,265 J6 defendants? Are you claiming that prosecutions are decided by looking for this profile? This is an extremely confusing paragraph.
You concede that Epps would not be presumed to be a leader of any kind and I just want to understand how you contrasted his situation to determine that he was treated unusually. I again repeat that a really good starting point would be for you to pick one comparable J6 defendant that you think was treated much more harshly than Epps.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
No I meant "to" because I didn't see anything about Alex Jones encouraging others to go inside. I don't know what you're referring to about regularly-scheduled program, it's hard to compare behaviors from different people because people don't act like mimes and do exactly the same thing at the same time at the same place. Best you can do is outline what the relevant factors and dimensions are and then analyze the actions according to that template. Inevitably you're bound to encounter reasonable disagreement throughout that process.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
I have no idea what you're referring to about my "intuition" that "Alex Jones would do something like this". Do what? Where are you getting this from?
ymeskhout
10mo ago
I have no seen any evidence or video of Alex Jones explicitly telling people to enter the capitol. He was just the first person that came to mind who seemed more-or-less comparable to Epps along the "whip up crowd to head to the Capitol" axis.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Well there's two questions here and it's important not to confuse them:
- How much did Ray Epps get away with what he did?
- How much did Ray Epps get away with what he did because he was a victim of a conspiracy theory?
I've laid out my reasons for why Ray Epps does not appear to have been treated unusually when comparing his charges/sentences to other comparable J6 defendants. In terms of how much him being the victim of a conspiracy theory affected the outcome, it's hard to say because his ultimate sentence was well within the ballpark compared to other defendants. I do think it's plausible just based on the fact that this is indeed a factor in other cases, but his sentence was expected to be low anyways. You can read Epps' sentencing memo filed by his attorney for further details on how his life had been affected.
This is why a comparison to Epstein/Maxwell wouldn't make sense. The "suffered enough already" factor might sway judges/prosecutors at the margins, particularly for petty or questionable offenses, but I can't imagine a scenario where it would justify leniency for someone accused of running an underage sex trafficking ring.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Is there any legal basis for this at all?
Not explicitly so and not unique to conspiracy theories, but judges and prosecutors do indeed factor into their decisions whether someone has "suffered enough already". The prime example I can think of are deciding whether to charge negligent parents whose child is killed as a result of being forgotten inside a hot car. I also had a client who avoided jail time on her third DUI, most likely because the collision she caused severely mangled her foot and left her in a wheelchair.
Edit: Merrick Garland timeline, and MAGA grandma below
I really appreciate the specifics in your response! I'll go point by point first, from the standpoint of how unusually Ray Epps was treated:
Factor 1: Epps encouraged others to enter the Capitol
It's true that Epps 1) repeatedly encouraged others to go into the Capitol "peacefully" (whatever that means) and 2) did not enter the Capitol himself. Moreover, he's captured on video trying to calm protestors down. I agree #1 is a negative factor for sentencing, but would you agree that #2 is a positive factor for sentencing? I don't know if the two factors exactly cancel each other out but it's fairly routine for the legal system to have drastically lowered penalties for criminals who change their mind at the last minute.
Besides that, both Alex Jones (though he did say "We are peaceful" and "we need to not have the confrontation with the police") and Nick Fuentes ("Keep moving towards the Capitol! It appears we are taking the Capitol!") encouraged others to march towards the Capitol but did not enter themselves, and unlike Epps neither of them were charged with any crimes.
Because far more prominent individuals who encouraged others to go to the Capitol and were not even charged, while Epps was charged with misdemeanors, this particular factor does not indicate that Epps was treated unusually. What do you think I'm missing?
Factor 2: FBI's most wanted
It's true that Epps was put on an FBI "Seeking Information" list as Photograph #16. He still shows up on Twitter, but no longer on the official list, but lots of other photos have also been taken down from that list (they're numbered sequentially so if you start at the beginning you'll see it goes 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, etc). I don't understand how this is indicative of unusual treatment if the FBI is removing dozens (hundreds?) of other photos.
Regarding the timing of charges, it's true that Epps wasn't charged until a mere 3 days after Merrick Garland was asked about him. [Edit: I hadn't looked closely when I posted this, but Merrick Garland was asked about Ray Epps by Thomas Massie on 9/20/23 and charges against Ray Epps were actually filed two days prior on 9/18/23. Epps appeared virtually in court on the 20th to plead guilty, which heavily indicates the plea was negotiated a couple of months prior]. The timing could be more than just a coincidence, but in what direction? You could argue that Epps was treated unusually harshly if you compare his conduct to Jones and Fuentes (who have not been charged) but you're arguing the opposite and I don't understand how.
Factor 3: Undercharged relative to others
It's true it's difficult to draw a direct comparison about conduct regarding what the "baseline charge" should be, but you're begging the question by saying Epps was undercharged "relative to other major J6 figures". Regarding his specific conduct (and not the attention he's garnered) why should Epps be considered a major figure to begin with? To conduct any comparison it would be helpful if you can identify an illustrative example of a J6 defendant who acted similarly to Ray Epps but was charged/sentenced much more harshly.
Factor 4: Victim of Conspiracies
This is a recursive argument. The judge at his sentencing said "While many defendants have been vilified in a way unique to Jan. 6, you seem to be the first to have suffered for what you didn't do". I don't deny that's a unique situation, but to establish that Epps was treated uniquely generously you need a baseline to compare against. I don't know the grandma you're referring to [Edit: Found what I think is the grandma, who entered the capitol and got 2 months in jail], so all I have to compare against is the fact that Epps avoided jail just like 37% of other convicted J6 defendants.
Maybe if we had a hypothetical Ray Epps Two who was the subject of similarly intense conspiracy theories but whose sentencing judge did not acknowledge his suffering then you could argue that Ray Epps One was treated unusually generously, but if it's not reflected in sentencing why would that matter?
Factor 5: Epps' suit against Fox News
I don't understand any of this. Why is the suit shameless? How could the DOJ possibly stop Epps from suing Fox News? Even if somehow they charged him with triple-digit felonies, he would still be able to sue (almost a quarter of federal lawsuits are filed by prisoners!). This is a baffling point.
TL;DR
- Other people also encouraged others to go to the Capitol and never even got charged
- Other people were also put on the FBI "Seeking Information" list and later removed
- To argue he was undercharged, you need to provide a comparable example
- I fail to see the relevance of a judge acknowledging Epp's unique status as a victim of conspiracy theories
- DOJ cannot "allow" Epps to sue Fox News
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Last week, @SlowBoy posted about Ray Epps being sentenced to probation and asserted this was a "uniquely generous outcome" for Epps. I was puzzled by this assertion and so I asked some clarifying questions and most of my responses were heavily downvoted. As a barometer of community sentiment, I tried to understand why my questions would be met so negatively and so this post is my attempt to formulate some theories. I am open to feedback on how I can post better!
Theory 1: I focused on the wrong parameters for evaluating Ray Epps' situation
I would like to think I have some practical experience in evaluating whether a given defendant is treated with unusual leniency/harshness. I once had a client who was arrested along one other guy at the same place, both for illegally possessing a firearm. Both were felons with comparable criminal history but in addition to a gun, the other guy also was caught with what the cops referred to as a "pharmacy" of drugs in his backpack (very likely worth at least $20k on the street) and also very openly admitted to police that the gun was his. So it was really weird that my guy got charged with a gun felony while the street pharmacist was charged with only a gun misdemeanor and offered a diversion program on top of that (charges get dismissed if he stays out of trouble). I investigated more of the pharmacist's background and found out he's been arrested at least three times within the last year for exactly the same conduct (gun + drug backpack) and each time no charges were filed. I had no way of proving this conclusively but the only explanation that made sense is that he was an informant of some kind. Letting the prosecutors know I was aware of pharmacist's disparate treatment was likely instrumental in getting my guy a misdemeanor plea offer.
Obviously that was a serendipitous comparison scenario, but when I was presented with Ray Epp's situation the reasonable starting point was to examine the severity of charges and sentences that other J6 defendants received. The DOJ and other sources make this information very easy to find. At least from a bird's eye view, nothing about Ray Epps pleading guilty to misdemeanors (505 out of all 1,265 J6 defendants also did), avoiding jail time (282 out of 749 convicted J6 defendants also did), or avoiding pretrial detention (70% of J6 defendants also did) seemed unusual.
If there are factors besides the severity of the charges, sentencing, or pretrial detention that I should have evaluated instead, I would love to know about them. Maybe I can even use this information at my real job.
Theory #2: I posted false or misleading information
Maybe I focused on the correct parameters, but DOJ information is either false or misleading? That's certainly a possibility, and it wouldn't be the first time a government agency made shit up. But if so, either some evidence of this duplicity or some alternative source should be offered and I'm aware of neither.
Theory #3: I posted truthful information that people thought was false or misleading
This is an online forum and we often shoot from the hip when posting. Sometimes mistakes happen. @HlynkaCG for example responded to my questions by offering two points of comparison as a contrast to how Ray Epps was treated: "we had so-cal soccer-moms and that guy who took a selfie sitting at Nancy Pelosi's spend over a year in prison only to be released after pleading to misdemeanors." I don't know who the soccer-moms are but the Nancy Pelosi reference is presumably referring to Richard Barnett who was convicted of 4 felonies and sentenced to 54 months in prison, definitely not "released after pleading to misdemeanors". As I showcased more than a year ago, this wouldn't be the first time someone here makes a confident assertion on the topic of J6 or on related election fraud theories that are not necessarily reflected in reality.
Speaking personally, I would react with genuine gratitude if anyone pointed out I had made a false or misleading assertion, because it's not something I ever wish to repeat intentionally. Part of that effort requires introspection to investigate what went wrong in the process. I again maintain there is absolutely nothing shameful about making mistakes, and part of what I value about this community is how much we celebrate remedial acknowledgement and introspection for faulty thinking and I hope HlynkaCG can shed light on the matter.
Theory #4: I posted truthful information that could lead to false or misleading implications
This reaction is commonly encountered, and likely stems from a poor decoupling ability. For example, it's likely true that Africans had a higher life expectancy enslaved in the US than they did free in Africa at the time of the slave trade. Whether or not this is true is purely a factual determination, but many people can't help it and get ahead of themselves to pre-emptively address what they believe are necessary implications of this fact. The only way that the "slavery can raise life expectancy for the enslaved" fact could in any way threaten the position of "slavery is bad" is if the former is a significant pillar of the latter, or if someone had succumbed to 'arguments as soldiers' mentality. The classic example of this scenario is AOC's famously-lampooned "Factually inaccurate but morally right".
And so I've often wondered if this is driving part of the negative reaction to fact-checking J6-related claims. Maybe challenging one specific premise (Ray Epps was treated with unusual leniency) necessarily challenges an overall conclusion (J6 defendants are treated unfairly) because someone assumes the two are coupled at the hips together:
To use a deliberately outlandish example, someone arguing "J6 defendants are treated unfairly" links to video footage of Hillary Clinton using a hot iron to torture a MAGA prisoner. I swoop in with my google-fu and point out that the video is actually a scene from a porn with surprisingly high production values. A satisfying ending to this story is possible: the person who linked the video can just say "Damn I was wrong!" and we both can just move on, skipping into the horizon.
There are several things that I think definitely should NOT happen. One, I cannot cite my deboonking to claim I've conclusively proven that J6 defendants are actually treated fairly. That wouldn't follow, especially if I'm deliberately ignoring other, much stronger arguments. Two, the person who posted the hot iron porn shouldn't refuse to admit they were wrong on that premise. This evasiveness serves absolutely no purpose in this space, and it's startlingly immature. And three, now also would not really be the time for them to pivot towards dredging up ancillary reasons for why their conclusion still remains correct.
I don't know what the solution is to this lack of decoupling. It's really hard to teach nuance.
Theory #6: I'm ruining the fun
People have deeply cherished beliefs they want to hold on to, and challenging those beliefs ruins the prospect of a good time. This is the least charitable theory obviously. The operating principle of the Motte is to be "a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas" but unfortunately this has and will forever risk being prescriptive more than descriptive. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias clearly exist but it stretches my empathy to its limits for me to try and understand what could motivate someone to sacrifice truth-seeking in order to pursue belief affirmation points. I don't understand it and, given the nature of its manifestation, I don't anticipate a transparent confession. I offered a template of what an introspective admission could potentially look like when I admitted to having previously believed in abolishing police/prisons despite my awareness that I lacked the ability to defend those beliefs, but maybe that confession was only possible because enough time had passed to give me distance from the sting.
True to the spirit of this post, I'm open to being proven wrong.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Well you said that the median sentence of 45 days ignores pretrial detention, which is true. I have no reason to believe it would be a meaningful difference, and you're not telling me how including pretrial detention would change the median, so that objection does not appear relevant.
that guy who took a selfie sitting at Nancy Pelosi's spend over a year in prison only to be released after pleading to misdemeanors.
You're presumably referring to Richard Barnett? He was convicted of 8 counts, 4 of which were felonies, and sentenced to 54 months in prison. I don't know if you were going off memory or another source, but either way it doesn't match up with reality. Googling this was very easy and I recommend it.
I thought you were a lawyer; how can you look at this situation and not conclude that there is something shady going on?
I already gave you the data for why his case seems very typical of other J6 defendants. Ray Epps is further distinguished by not having entered the Capitol, while only a portion of the 2,000 who did were ever charged with anything. You're more than welcome to either dispute the facts or dispute their relevance.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
You're right that the sentencing data does not necessarily reflect pretrial detention, but you're not giving me any other data to fill those gaps. The article you linked doesn't cite how many were held pretrial or for how long, but I would assume a high positive correlation between pretrial detention and sentence severity because that's how it works in practice. As of May 2021 70% of J6 defendants had been released pre-trial compared to a release rate of 25% for all federal defendants, which makes sense given the unusually high number of federal misdemeanor prosecutions.
As far as I can tell, Ray Epps is heralded as an unusual case because he plead guilty to misdemeanors (so did 40% of other J6 defendants), served no jail time (so did 37% of others, likely significantly higher if you count only misdemeanors), and was not detained pretrial (so did 70% of others). I don't see what is unusual about any of these factors. I know working with data can be hard, but maybe it can be instructive if you can cite a single example of a J6 defendant who languished in prison for weeks for far less egregious behavior than Ray Epps, because I don't know the evidence behind your claim.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
I want to understand your position better, so what exactly is your evidence that the "judiciary" is politically captured? From what I can understand, you're citing:
- A lawsuit settlement
- A charging decision by a prosecutor
- A jury verdict
None of those things were directly decided by a judge, but I'm willing to read between the lines and presumably you meant that decisions by the judiciary resulted in those outcomes. Granting that, how exactly does that establish political capture? Should every adverse legal ruling, criminal prosecution, or jury verdict loss be considered sufficient proof of political capture?
ymeskhout
10mo ago
Epps was charged with a misdemeanor, uniquely leniency for J6 protesters...
Given his uniquely generous outcome...
What is your standard for what counts as uniquely lenient/generous? 40% of all J6 defendants (505 out of 1,265) plead guilty to only misdemeanors. 37% of all convicted J6 defendants (282 out of 749) did not receive any jail time. Of those sentenced to jail time, the median appears to be 45 days.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
You're right, it was unfair of me to criticize you for doing the same thing I did.
And people can of course also be upset by a disparity in attention in general and it may thus trigger an already existing dissatisfaction with perceived unfairness. I'm sure that as a member of this forum you are familiar with people upset over biases in (sub)cultures or in the media, and perhaps becoming rather eager to interpret new evidence in that light.
Sure, this happens regularly for many issues and it's not a response I respect as it stems from the same cognitive dissonance aversion. If a pro-Israeli activist was tearing down posters relaying the plight of Palestinian people, I would similarly decry them as similarly motivated. You're reading into the actions of the people who tear down the posters and providing your own explanation for their behavior but even assuming your explanation is true, "upset at attention disparity" is a loathsome emotional motivator no matter what issue it's applied to. What would be more fitting is hearing from the people tearing down the posters directly, and the only explanations I encountered were either delusional (paraphrasing: "this is all lies, no one was kidnapped") or vague objections about how the posters are not "helpful". This is how censors act when they encounter facts inconvenient to their preferred narrative they don't want anyone else to know about, and I'll never respect that mission.
And again, I fully agree that the posters are a political act, and that they are driven by an agenda, and that they provide no practical assistance towards rescue efforts except as a political call to action.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
I interpreted that differently. The author doesn't say they expect Californians to assist in the recovery effort of kidnapped Israelis, the comparison to milk cartons is that the posters are just as "anodyne". The author says there is "no mention of politics" but I agree that putting up the posters is itself a political act and totally agree that it's driven by an agenda. I see the posters of kidnapped Israelis akin to a memorial of sorts, very similar to the "missing" posters of 9/11 victims. There is no indication that the posters could ever help recover a 9/11 victim from the rubble, but they're likely put up as a way to remember someone lost, and maybe remind the public of the significance of the event.
If someone claimed posters of Israelis posted in Brooklyn somehow helped rescue efforts, I would agree with you that they're dishonest. But if they claimed it was to bring attention to an issue, then I don't see the dishonesty.
ymeskhout
10mo ago
I've seen the refinement of solo polyamory and my kneejerk reaction there is "how is this different from...being single and sexually active"
Same! I regularly had "solo poly" women come up on Tinder and I had no idea how to parse it. It does indeed seem indistinguishable from "just casually fucking for now, not looking for anything serious" and the link you had doesn't offer any insights except that people have an attachment to the "poly" label. It also follows the typical template of doing everything possible to avoid gatekeeping ("just because you're solo poly doesn't mean you can't get married!")
ymeskhout
10mo ago
I don't understand what definition of "dishonest war propaganda" you're using. If the posters fit the bill because their real goal is to bring attention to an issue rather than serve to assist in recovery efforts, does that mean anyone bringing attention to an issue is engaging in propaganda?
That's fair pushback, what examples would you suggest as superior comparisons? From another post of mine:
More options
Context Copy link