Whenever I read something, with an open mind, but say, in a sandboxed environment (don't run your memes on root), I get impressed by arguments which convince me of things which are not true.
Take for instance the following article:
It is a self-contradictory argument, we detected these bad relays when they arrived, allowed them for 6 months.
Now, what was the available prophylactic measures at the time? Alleged family greylisting wasn't available at the time, but certainly an attempt could be made to contact (presumably) a few owners of the tor relays. Although it turned out to be only one owner. I mean, people depend their lives on Tor.
Can all discretionary decisions of this type be made public?
Now there's also the Tor's unlike racists we value free speech. I cannot explain it, but if one replaced racists with Islamists, somehow the argument is weaker. I can't fully explain it, even though I've heard more about beheadings and defenestrations as opposed to... whatever racists do nowadays (shitpost?). It truly is a clever argument that strengthens and preserves Tor's brand identity among target demographic groups.
How did Freud invent psychoanalysis? What are you doing during the idle cycles of your brain? One does not need a fancy degree to be an amateur at anything, or do you folks not call yourselves hackers?