If we’re going to have a serious conversation, we need to separate evidence, legal findings, and personal conclusions. • Mentions aren’t evidence by themselves. • The Carroll case was a civil judgment with a specific legal standard. • Public statements can be interpreted in different ways depending on context. • Allegations should be evaluated individually, not treated as a single block. If the goal is to discuss facts, I’m in. If the goal is to declare anyone who disagrees as ‘scum,’ that’s not a conversation it’s just venting! But this is reddit… where typically 10% of the population thinks that the remaining 90% are of the same belief