Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Lacius]

At this point, you just debunk yourself.

"We the people" have yet to see any concrete evidence one way or the other in regards to last year's election.

There's no evidence there was any widespread voter fraud in last year's election, and there is evidence the election was one of the most secure in history. Providing baseless allegations and debunked allegations doesn't change that.

 

[tthousand]

There's no evidence there was any widespread voter fraud in last year's election, and there is evidence the election was one of the most secure in history. Providing baseless allegations and debunked allegations doesn't change that.

I would like to see you try to provide any evidence what-so-ever that this was one of the most secure elections in history. Please, let's see this evidence you claim there is.

With more and more evidence coming our daily that this was in fact most likely the most fraudulent election in history, you would be better off providing evidence for that argument.

 

[Lacius]

I would like to see you try to provide any evidence what-so-ever that this was one of the most secure elections in history. I assume all I will see is regurgitated dribble... but please, let's see this evidence you claim there is.

With more and more evidence coming our daily that this was in fact most likely the most fraudulent election in history, you would be better off providing evidence for that argument.

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election

 

[tthousand]

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election

I had a feeling that is what you were going to post. Still, they provide NO evidence. None, nadda, zilch, zero...

 

[Lacius]

I had a feeling that is what you were going to post. Still, they provide NO evidence. None, nadda, zilch, zero...

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

“Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.

“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”

We have every reason to think the 2020 election was secure, and we have no reason to think there was widespread fraud.

 

[tthousand]

We have every reason to think the 2020 election was secure, and we have no reason to think there was widespread fraud.

YAWN. Again, this is far from what I call evidence. This is more hearsay. There is no proof that this was a secure election besides them telling you it was.

 

[Lacius]

YAWN. Again, this is far from what I call evidence. This is more hearsay. There is no proof that this was a secure election besides them telling you it was.

There is more than enough evidence showing how secure the election was. I suggest you look through, for starters, the Rumor Control section of the CISA website. It includes reputable sources under each debunked falsehood.
https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol#rumor20

We have ample evidence the 2020 election was secure, and we have zero evidence of widespread voter fraud.

 

[tthousand]

In the words of Tommy Callahan,

"I can take a shit in a box and slap a guarantee on it, but all I am guaranteeing is that I sold you a piece of shit."

 

[Foxi4]

The election ship has already sailed. Unless there's a nuclear bomb somewhere that we haven't seen yet, and a lot of time has passed since November, the subject is not worth discussing.

 

[Deleted User]

I hope you realise that you're posting an opinion piece on Business Insider (the best source of information about animal behaviour, no doubt) about one researcher that has an opinion that goes against decades of research in the field.

fucking... lmao
Yeah, yeah...
WHEN IT'S THE RESEARCHER WHO ORIGINALLY COINED THE TERM!
yes, the very guy who started saying "Alpha's exist" back tracked on his statement, realizing it was wrong.
NO THAT'S AN OPINION PIECE.
Okay... okay.
holy fuck you did not read that article, it wasn't even in the opinion tab.

 

[tthousand]

The election ship has already sailed. Unless there's a nuclear bomb somewhere that we haven't seen yet, and a lot of time has passed since November, the subject is not worth discussing.

Well, just a few days ago, a physicist by the name of Dr. Douglas Frank just shared some very interesting finds about the 2020 election. Until there is concrete evidence one way or another that there was or was not voter fraud, I think it is still relevant. https://lindelltv.com/mike-lindell-tv-releases-irrefutable-election-theft-proof/

I mean, the left was trying to get Trump out of office for four years. They obviously thought it was still important to talk about the possibility of election interference well after November 2016.

Besides, what is there to even discuss about Biden really? The only questions I have is WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE DOCTOR REPORT? By now, most Presidents would have been thoroughly checked by a doctor to see if they are fit enough for the office. Where is Biden's bill of health?!?? Personally, I do not think he would pass, and that is why it has not been shared.

 

[Deleted User]

I hope you realise that you're posting an opinion piece on Business Insider (the best source of information about animal behaviour, no doubt) about one researcher that has an opinion that goes against decades of research in the field. Dominance hierarchies have been observed across multiple species. In many cases subordinate members of groups don't even get to mate unless they use trickery. In terms of non-human primates they're observable in groups of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans etc., so no - this *doesn't* "translate to other species", you're demonstrably wrong. Even if it does not apply to wolves (which is highly debatable), it most certainly applies to other species, particularly primates which we were talking about (and which wolves are not, by the way). You also don't seem to be aware of what a turn of phrase is. When someone says "it's in your blood/genes/DNA" they don't necessarily mean that there's a specific isolated gene that does X, it's a reference to a recurring trait. For instance, if a son of a great driver is also a good driver, you might say "it's in his DNA". That doesn't necessarily mean that we've isolated a magical "driving gene", although in the case of dominance hierarchies you may as well treat it literally, it works both ways.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/...30425_todays_phrase_it_is_in_her_genes1.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy
That's already been explained to him, but he doesn't accept that, so... Shrug?

I'm still unclear how this entire exchange relates to Joe Biden and his presidency though, I sure hope someone will explain the connection soon because, as I've mentioned earlier, all of this talk about "living off the grid" that brought us here seems grossly off-topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)
here's Wikipedia debunking Alpha
"
Application to humans
Within the manosphere, especially in the pickup artist community, there is a widespread view, later taken up in the mainstream, that there was also a dominance hierarchy among humans consisting of "alpha males" and "beta males". This view was accompanied by partly misogynistic, stereotypical ideas about women being "hard-wired" to desire "alpha males."[34] Comparisons were drawn to other apes. However, researchers reject this view, reasoning that masculinity and social behavior in humans are so complex that no general classification into a dominance hierarchy can be made. Humans can take the dominant role in some social situations and a subordinate role in others.[35][36]"

 

[Lacius]

Well, just a few days ago, a physicist by the name of Dr. Douglas Frank just shared some very interesting finds about the 2020 election. Until there is concrete evidence one way or another that there was or was not voter fraud, I think it is still relevant. https://lindelltv.com/mike-lindell-tv-releases-irrefutable-election-theft-proof/

I mean, the left was trying to get Trump out of office for four years. They obviously thought it was still important to talk about the possibility of election interference well after November 2016.

Besides, what is there to even discuss about Biden really? The only questions I have is WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE DOCTOR REPORT? By now, most Presidents would have been thoroughly checked by a doctor to see if they are fit enough for the office. Where is Biden's bill of health?!?? Personally, I do not think he would pass, and that is why it has not been shared.

We have Biden's medical report from December, 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...-report/ca7808de-da80-4f40-84e8-9dc3b23a7f12/

 

[Foxi4]

fucking... lmao
Yeah, yeah...
WHEN IT'S THE RESEARCHER WHO ORIGINALLY COINED THE TERM!
yes, the very guy who started saying "Alpha's exist" back tracked on his statement, realizing it was wrong.
NO THAT'S AN OPINION PIECE.
Okay... okay.
holy fuck you did not read that article, it wasn't even in the opinion tab.

Maybe you should read the article instead. David Mech does not reject the idea of dominance hierarchies as they exist in the animal kingdom, he rejects the idea that such behaviour exists in wolves in the wild since his original research was based on observing captive animals. This in no way invalidates decades of research into dominance hierarchies, you're wrong, and there's reams of literature that adequately prove that point.

Within the manosphere, especially in the pickup artist community, there is a widespread view, later taken up in the mainstream, that there was also a dominance hierarchy among humans consisting of "alpha males" and "beta males". This view was accompanied by partly misogynistic, stereotypical ideas about women being "hard-wired" to desire "alpha males." Comparisons were drawn to other apes. However, researchers reject this view, reasoning that masculinity and social behavior in humans are so complex that no general classification into a dominance hierarchy can be made. Humans can take the dominant role in some social situations and a subordinate role in others."

We're not discussing pick-up artistry. I bolded the only relevant section of the paragraph. Humans absolutely form dominance hierarchies in various areas of life - employees subordinate to their bosses, children subordinate to their parents and so on, and so forth. These dynamics are indeed complex and in constant flux. I won't be delving further into your rabbit hole since it's unrelated to the thread, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong, and you are wrong.

More on-topic, the Supreme Court has just vacated a previous ruling that Trump was in the wrong when blocking his detractors spamming his feed on Twitter - a somewhat empty ruling given the fact that Trump is permanently banned on the platform, but it relates to our previous conversation. Justice Clarence Thomas has also released a scathing opinion in regards to Section 230, link below.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/05/supreme-court-trump-clarence-thomas/

 

[Lacius]

Maybe you should read the article instead. David Mech does not reject the idea of dominance hierarchies as they exist in the animal kingdom, he rejects the idea that such behaviour exists in wolves in the wild since his original research was based on observing captive animals. This in no way invalidates decades of research into dominance hierarchies, you're wrong, and there's reams of literature that adequately prove that point.
We're not discussing pick-up artistry. I bolded the only relevant section of the paragraph. Humans absolutely form dominance hierarchies in various areas of life - employees subordinate to their bosses, children subordinate to their parents and so on, and so forth. These dynamics are indeed complex and in constant flux. I won't be delving further into your rabbit hole since it's unrelated to the thread, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong, and you are wrong.

More on-topic, the Supreme Court has just vacated a previous ruling that Trump was in the wrong when blocking his detractors spamming his feed on Twitter - a somewhat empty ruling given the fact that Trump is permanently banned on the platform, but it relates to our previous conversation. Justice Clarence Thomas has also released a scathing opinion in regards to Section 230, link below.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/05/supreme-court-trump-clarence-thomas/

Just to be clear, the Supreme Court ruling today has no bearing on the topic of the White House removing the comments section from YouTube videos. Trump blocking people on Twitter was unlawful, and the Supreme Court only vacated that consistent ruling because Trump's no longer president (and he's blocked), as you mentioned.

 

[Foxi4]

Just to be clear, the Supreme Court ruling today has no bearing on the topic of the White House removing the comments section from YouTube videos. Trump blocking people on Twitter was unlawful, and the Supreme Court only vacated that consistent ruling because Trump's no longer president (and he's blocked), as you mentioned.

The ruling isn't particularly interesting. The opinion by Justice Thomas on the other hand is worth looking at.

 

[Valwinz]

The ruling isn't particularly interesting. The opinion by Justice Thomas on the other hand is worth looking at.

It is and is really good

 

[Lacius]

The ruling isn't particularly interesting. The opinion by Justice Thomas on the other hand is worth looking at.

Sure, it's interesting (albeit nauseatingly stupid), but it's also irrelevant to the specific points being made in our previous conversation. Thomas has a problem with the power that tech companies (and more specifically, the few individuals who allegedly control those companies) have over what's censored and who's banned. In other words, Thomas was (mistakenly) more concerned with how tech companies were treating users, vs. how public officials were treating users.

 

[tthousand]

Sure, it's interesting (albeit nauseatingly stupid), but it's also irrelevant to the specific points being made in our previous conversation. Thomas has a problem with the power that tech companies (and more specifically, the few individuals who allegedly control those companies) have over what's censored and who's banned. In other words, Thomas was (mistakenly) more concerned with how tech companies were treating users, vs. how public officials were treating users.

It actually goes to show that the YouTube Bidden incident is very similar to the Trump Twitter incident. Those White House video originally had the comments section open. They were closed after the fact the so many people were displeased and expressed such. I see no mistakes on the Judge Thomas interpretation, which he has been doing since before you were even a thought. All I see if double standards... But hey, at least you are showing some standards.

 

[Foxi4]

Sure, it's interesting (albeit nauseatingly stupid), but it's also irrelevant to the specific points being made in our previous conversation. Thomas has a problem with the power that tech companies (and more specifically, the few individuals who allegedly control those companies) have over what's censored and who's banned. In other words, Thomas was (mistakenly) more concerned with how tech companies were treating users, vs. how public officials were treating users.

I disagree. The spirit of 230 was very simple - shielding service providers from culpability in instances where the user has misused their service.

If I call someone and threaten them over the phone, is the telephone company liable, or an accomplice to the crime, because the threat was transmitted over their lines? No, of course not - they have no control over the content of phone calls, they simply provide a service that is available to the public and the culpable person is the one who issued the threat. Things take a twist when the service is something like Facebook or Twitter where the platform *does* have control over the content. If they have the power to separate what is and is not acceptable, there is an argument to be made that they are in fact culpable for whatever slips between their fingers, should they fail to police their users.

The legislation was specifically created to protect websites from third-party content that is uploaded onto them. It gave them the means to deal with such content, but this exchange is not one-sided. The mutual understanding here was that various online service providers were committed to creating free and open platforms for the public, and in exchange for providing this service, the state was going to shield them from liability. Since the platforms now police content beyond the usual removal of spam and beyond what could be considered removing illegal content in the timely fashion, they're inviting this kind of scrutiny.

As I've mentioned in the past, previous rulings show that a private property, like a mall, still cannot infringe upon first amendment rights. In fact, it has the duty to uphold them, simply by the virtue of being the public square, see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins which always gets mentioned. This can translate to "online spaces" very easily and is perfectly sensible. Fence sitting only goes so far, social media companies cannot real all the benefits and refuse to bear any of the duties in this relationship with the state.