There's a million ways this can play out, but for the good of the country, my priority would be getting a complete, unequivocal admission of guilt and acknowledgement that Biden was wrong, total cooperation with investigators, and dialing back the national temperature.
Biden needs to stand in front of America and say something like "XYZ happened. I did this for political reasons to get Hillary in power. It was very corrupt and wrong. These people (obama, hillary, etc) also knew about it and we spent the last few years screeching about Russia to try and obfuscate the truth and overthrow the lawfully elected US President in order to get power and also protect my son. Here's some evidence and facts that validates this. I disagree with Trump politically on some topics, but he's a smart and talented guy who was greatly wronged by the Democrats and media. PS: I also lied about what happened at Charlottesville where I claimed that Trump supported the Nazis and the media went along with it. Trump is right about the fake news." That gives Trump the mandate to arrest many people, and blows the Democrat Party out of the water. Trump would have 4 years to make America greater with almost no credible opposition. If he does this, to me Biden can spend his remaining couple of years under house arrest.
The following is what I don't want to happen and might be dangerous for the country. Trump loses the popular vote, but wins by a slim electoral victory. Joe Biden concedes in a dignified way and appears to have some kind of moral high-ground. Then the DOJ swoops in and arrests everybody and the Democrats can say "Trump is this orange fascist who is locking up his political opponents who did nothing wrong and even conceded an election they really won. REEEEE" Then we'll spend the next 4 years with more riots and coup attempts and Trump will not be able to get nearly as much done.
I might be wrong about this. Maybe the best thing for the country is for the penalties to be so great and swift that this never happens again. But maybe the path where Biden and other conspirators are willing to play ball is the ideal path for America going forward. (of course, the odds of this are so overwhelming minimal)
I don't watch too much Joe Rogan, but he had one of the all-time epically bad interviews with Jack Dorsey the first time around where he let him get away with so much nonsensical bullshit without challenging him. Was that Joe's dumbness in this domain or him being some kind of shill who knows where his bread is buttered? Not 100% sure, but he got roasted over the coals for that initial interview.
I think the biggest issue with these tech companies is that they can pick and choose when they're a publisher or platform and get the advantages of Section 230 without the negatives. The real failing here is I believe on the FTC not forcing their neutrality and telling them...."you can ban Alex Jones and anybody else you want for wrong-think anytime, no problem. You can be as biased politically as you want. But the second you do that, you will lose Section 230 liability protections and will be considered a publisher and financially and legally liable for anything anything anybody does on your site."
As far as these big corporations wanting to acquire other firms and anti-trust being an issue, I think it's really dangerous and tough to go down that route, not hitting the root of the issue, and potentially holds humanity back. And also, it's impossible for the government to figure out. Technology is very interconnected. Say that Apple wants to pick up a machine learning startup. How can you prevent them from doing that? They could want to use that technology in their photography products, their calendar products, in their music service, in their tv service, in their voice assistants, or other products. How is some government regulator going to be able to figure out what the best use of technology is? Hell, if you went down this route, then it's just the government anti-trust process and not the tech firms that would become politicized.
I think sarcasm is safe for now. Take Ryan Long on YouTube. He does different things like man on the street interviews with topics like "should a baby transition?" and completely seriously takes an over the top leftist position. I don't think there's a way for even Google to tell through algorithms whether somebody actually has the "wrong opinions" or is mocking them.
I wouldn't completely dismiss a woman that self-described as a liberal on their dating profile, so long as they checked out positively in other facets of life.
For one thing: any moderate, conservative, or libertarian can get along with a relatively honest, decent liberal like Tulsi Gabbard. They're definitely out there and you can have great thoughtful discussions with them where you agree on goals but disagree about the best way to get there.
For another thing, you might not be getting their real beliefs. Just to give a quick example: many women work in professions (teaching for instance) that have heavy career pressure to fit into that kind of hive mind. Some of them might be hiding their true beliefs to fit in and avoid damage to their career. There's plenty of conservatives here who work in pozzed industries who unfortunately have to hide many of their beliefs just to keep their family fed.
To me, the biggest warning signs on dating profiles is virtue signaling about BLM, stating ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards), extremely short hair (some women can pull it off as their best look but often it's a rebellious and anti-social kind of thing), ranting about politics and Trump on their profile, having excessive visible tattoos, or brightly colored hair (natures warning signal that this creature is poison and to stay away).
I do think that Google/YouTube is strongly biased, but I'd like to urge caution on definitively declaring that you know exactly what is going on in all cases.
For reference: I'm a programmer who has dealt with similar systems before and has done some looking into how YouTube's system works.
YouTube's systems for counting stuff (views, likes, dislikes) don't display all data in real-time. What I believe happens is that they write all activity to a set of servers, and then have a periodic out of band process that analyzes their logs, removes bot traffic from the counts (various search engine crawlers, fake view businesses, etc) and attempts to come up with some close approximation of what the actual unique view/like/dislike count is.
You can observe this yourself by seeing the occasional phenomenon where a new video (whether its politics or skateboarding) will have more comments or likes than views. Their system is optimized for eventual consistency, not absolute real time display of stats.
What could be observed here is this. They might have designed their systems this way on purpose to allow them to obfuscate and manipulate data easier, but there's at least a smidgen of plausible deniability on YouTube's part here and there's no way to definitively know without access to their logs.
I view this phenomenon as partially being caused by privilege.
Not white privilege, but modern day privilege.
Despite all of our social problems, living in modern day America is so great that we haven't known massive starvation, war, disease, revolution, etc for generations. Hell, arguably one of the biggest problems is obesity among the poor; that's how well off America is.
It's easy to focus on things that don't matter (the tiniest microaggressions or perceived racial disparities) when almost all of the big problems have been solved for longer than you've been alive.
The problem for us now is that things have been good for so long, we are at risk of spiraling back down for a while.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
It's hilarious as a shitpost, but I think harping on the sex thing is a losing play with many women unless you frame it as something like this...."women will not be taken seriously on the presidential level if the first woman president gets there via anything other pure merit". Just focusing on the sex and not adding the other part makes it seem like you're attacking womens' sexuality. Not 100% sure, but my 2 cents.
The only thing that miffs me a bit is on the GOA website, if you click on press releases, their last update is January 2019. Now I know that they're active on Twitter and other areas on their website, but somehow that was the first thing I clicked on and it looked like their web presence was entirely dead. Very small point, but if you're going to be a lobbyist/activism agency, you have to be more active than that pushing out some press releases to the fake news.
I love basketball as a sport.
But it's really hard to care about the NBA anymore once the new NBA bubble season started.
- Some of the players were very strongly whining about the food and accommodations of their nice hotel resort in the bubble: meanwhile average people are worried about even affording food in this time. This looked really bad and showed off how entitled they are. To be fair, a few of the players did call out how "tone deaf" this was.
- They were talking about their heroic courage in standing up for "social justice" and all kinds of things like that, but meanwhile remain silent on China because they know how much money they're trying to make from there.
- They were complaining about how racist the NBA is, despite it being 80% black and it being entirely egalitarian.
- They received permission to put dumbass social justice messages on their uniforms and still complained it wasn't enough.
- They had to go and put "Black Lives Matter" on the court. As a concept, the message isn't bad, but it's simultaneously a commie organization and I oppose that.
- Many of the white players that I liked like Kyle Korver completely cucked out and started talking about his white privilege and other nonsense. I get the feeling that even the sane athletes feel an immense pressure to go along with the groupthink for the sake of their career.
- Much, much, more.
The players are brainwashed by the media into thinking that the biggest problem black men face is unarmed black men getting killed by police. There's a handful of mistakes and crimes a year in a nation of 340 million, and society investigates and prosecutes those very strongly.
I'd like to be charitable and assume that Dr. Fauci is not deliberately trying to destroy the world, so under that premise, I'd like to ask a question.
Is this all about Doctors as a profession just tending to having wildly different standards of risk tolerance compared to others when making decisions involving risk management?
Think about it: doctors can get sued like crazy or lose their license if they advocate an unapproved treatment. The safest thing for a doctor to do in some cases when they're not certain what treatment is approved is probably let a patient die rather than giving them even a 5-10% extra chance to live, if there's even a possibility of advocating something that all medical bodies haven't approved. The medical culture is to do no harm: which has some advantages and some disadvantages.
Somebody that comes from a different professional field than medicine sees that HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotics is reported to have some impact, sees that it's cheap, and is safe for most people (except some people with extreme heart problems I believe) and sees that's it's a great risk management decision to give it out early and often to the sick. The studies that have been performed on very sick have seemed to missed 2 key variables (lack of Zinc and Antibiotics, and given too late) so should not be taken as conclusive.
At the worst, HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotics almost certainly wouldn't do any harm, even if it's not greatly effective. We've used these medications for a long time with no harmful effects At best, it could literally save the world from the worst economic depression in history that could lead to the deaths of billions through economic collapse, social upheaval, and possibly a global war and seems like the right risk management choice to use the HCQ combo early even though we have a bit of doubt about it.
So is Dr. Fauci just trying to destroy the world, or are doctors as a profession just ultra-terrible at risk management? Maybe there's another explanation but it's hard to come up with one.
Vaccines have never proven safe or useful for anything. It contradicts the very idea of adaptation of species and evolution.
The basic theory behind vaccines makes sense given the way the immune system seems to work. Vaccines use the immune system adaptations to give your own body the key it needs to fight sickness off. It doesn't contradict the idea of adaptation: it uses that concept.
But I think that the safety of vaccines is quite unproven: the standard double blind tests that happen in medicine apparently weren't done for vaccines (see Scott Adams interview Dr Shiva on this), what tests occur for vaccines on children apparently aren't tested the way they're given: tests are done individually when vaccines in practical circumstances are administered many at once.
Additionally there's legit concerns about the various chemicals in vaccines.
Did vaccines do more good or harm? Really tough to prove. It seems that both vaccines and other things like better sanitation could have arguably contributed towards diseases being eliminated. It's not "proven" I suppose, but there seems to be a link with vaccines and increases in autism. Both sides make their case using the same data and seem to think they're right, just like climate change.
My biggest concern about vaccines isn't so much the science: I'm not enough of a doctor to have a super credible opinion on this ultra complex system. My big concern about vaccines is that there's a stigma about even asking about the safety. If Doctors have real concerns about vaccines, they should be allowed to address it without fearing for their career. People who try and make society safer should be applauded.
Assuming that this story is true, this is sad for so many reasons, but the big one is losing a good male teacher. As a nerdy guy who was socially awkward, the few male teachers I had in my school career sort of understood me and helped me out greatly. I love the ladies, but kids (especially boys) also need some male influence and energy too. One sad thing about schools is that such a disproportionate percentage of teachers are women. I think good men that might be willing to sacrifice a more lucrative career and go into teaching are fearful of investing in this career and getting a false sexual allegation against them and losing everything. Throw political shaming for the most bland opinions on top of this, and what are we left with? What man would be willing to go into this career if you have to risk allegations and also have to dodge the NKDV on top of this to survive in your career? Well, at least we've achieved full diversity by getting rid of all of the male teachers I guess.
Guessing passwords is hard if you don't use a typical dumb password like your birthday or dog's name or common passwords like password123 or whatever. Also, there's always rate limiting and captchas and other safeguards on this type of large-scale site for the password system so even with a state actor that has access to a lot of resources to try and guess the password, it would be tough. There's a theory that the attack vector used may be installed apps that give a 3rd party application different permissions. Has Trump ever tweeted from anything other than the site itself or the official phone app? On the advice of the SS, GEOTUS probably doesn't mess around with adding random Apps that add random permissions.
Given the 2 movies on one screen phenomena where both sides see reality differently on every issue, I wonder if this pattern follows. The left will blame Russia. The right will blame China. But the smart money is on Italy. I'm keeping my eye on you, you spaghetti eating fucks. (Joking about Italy. We all know it's really New Zealand)
My theory is that the left will suddenly acknowledge the existence of "per capita" when trying to refute the President on the "more white people died" claim.
"Well actually, per capita fewer white than black people die"
Then when you tell them, yes, but there's not identical crime rates between races, that despite being just 13% of the population....yada yada....they'll suddenly go back to not understanding what per capita means.
I totally oppose the smear job that Roy Moore suffered from, but I don't think that obvious satire/comedy/humor should be subject to these kinds of lawsuits even if it's from the other side. This sets a horrible precedent.
Imagine if Hillary could sue for memes about her killing witnesses.
Imagine if Joe Biden could could sue for funny YouTube skits about his dementia.
This isn't the world I want to live in.
The standard for lawsuits should be pretty high, especially in the context of obvious parody/satire/comedy.
You can still enjoy movies going forward without supporting China or Hollywood or going to modern theaters and being subjected to bullshit mask rules. Pro-tips.