3 ms·
The public is...unintelligent, and generally incapable of differentiating between an accusation and a conviction.
by WarmWash 8mo ago
The public is...unintelligent, and generally incapable of differentiating between an accusation and a conviction.
- aestetix 8mo agoThere are two stories here. One is the alleged wrongdoing. The second is the fact that the Washington Post has a name of a former DOGE employee. I'm far more interested in the second story than the first.
- WarmWash 8mo agoAsking for a list of all DOGE employees is different than asking for the name of the single accused employee. It wouldn't make any sense for the media to publish a list of every DOGE employee in the context of this story.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ajross 8mo agoRight, because indiscriminately hoovering data about people and their activities and affiliations for the benefit of someone else is clearly immoral. Oh, wait.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- jsbisviewtiful 8mo agoNot like the current admin and AI companies are helping with that at all. Also, anyone in that department has brought great harm to the entire country and their employment should be public knowledge.
- tastyface 8mo agoEvery DOGE member is complicit, and every single name should be published. They knew what they were getting into.
- ZeroGravitas 8mo agoSomething DOGE relied on when publicizing all those 300 year old people claiming benefits. Who turned out not to exist. Or when they put loshed that website full of their savings. Which turned out not to exist.