social hierarchy studies have primarily been done on lobsters and wolves

I’m skeptical. I’ll grant you wolves, but even then, wolves I feel are no more or less studied than a bunch of other species which are subject of extensive interest, especially primates, dolphins and orcas, but also lions, hyenas, meerkats, bees and ants. At least those are all studied well enough that we have plenty to pick from.

I appreciate your point though that its ideologically driven anyway and that it’s all moot and 100% agree.

It wouldn’t even matter if it was “right”. The idea of looking to wolves for models of ideal human behavior is wrong for like 17 different reasons, even if it were technically true as a description of wolf behavior.

P.S. why do AlphaBros specifically look at wolves, or lobsters, to instruct us on social hierarchy? There are so many other animals, those seem pretty random choices. And pretty far afield from humans. Wouldn’t you at least want something more proximate to us humans on the evolutionary tree? Heck, why not just use humans as a reference point?

And the original concept, as it pertains to wolves, is evidently not a thing. So if we’re just saying things, the software metaphor is as good as any other.

Not quite. That was the second of my two sentences. What was the first?

I learn from the best!

That wasn’t my question.

You’ve been wrong literally every step of the way about everything you’ve said and you still want to do this?

The data referenced in the report was recorded from 2021. Your link requires a login so I can’t see what it says, but if I was as much of a wreckless 💩 poster as you, I would just say securitytrails is fake and just making everything up and say “nobody cares”.

Okay, the next step in the playbook is “no one cares”. I don’t know, I think online disinformation has emerged as one of the major international issues characteristic of our time and will go down in the history books. So I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that no one cares.

I’m sorry that calling you out on your 💩 means I’m a debate bro. But the flip side of the same coin is that you’re the one spewing the 💩💩💩.

Removed by mod

You started out by saying was no evidence, except there was. Now you’ve moved the goalposts and are debating the nuances of the evidence instead of saying that none was presented.

You derailed with whataboutism, you made a blanket generalization based on an unrelated story. Are you just going down the playbook, one derailment tactic at a time?

Five posts from now you will be saying “well yeah, maybe they proved the IP was from Russia, but the guy from Russia generated a fake site with 17 fake authors because he cared so much about journalistic integrity!”

So in your opinion is DC Weekly (mentioned in the article) in fact a legitimate american news source? I want to understand more about what specifically they are projecting.

Removed by mod

Go ahead and make your own thread about those if you like. I don’t understand why you would bring them in to try and change the subject in this particular post unless you’re purposely whatabouting.

Please even just read so much as one paragraph of the article and post anything related to that, anything at all. I don’t feel like that’s asking too much.

Yes and no. That story was bad for a reasons specific to that story that were uncovered and sourced from other credible reporting. You can’t proceed from that to a blanket generalization over everything else in New York times reports without any additional supporting evidence.

Also it’s sourcing and quoting other sources, so you’d have to explain if you believe that the New York times made up those sources.

for being such a meanie

Lol. You mean literally engaging in insurrection? This is exactly what internet hippo was talking about in their now famous tweet:

New right wing thing is describing crimes as generically as possible to pretend like they’re not crimes. Someone gets convicted of conspiracy and they start yelling “Wow so it’s illegal to make plans with friends now”

I’d love to see a whole chart of how various crimes get described in a generic way. Describing insurrection as being a meanie probably something that should be printed in framed and hung up in a Hall of Fame honoring greatest all time excuses for federal crimes.

they don’t vote anyone into any office, as “being the official candidate for party X” is not an government office. So the judge used A14 on an issue where it does not apply to in the first place

The political primary process still falls under electoral law, and state law can be brought to bear on questions of how the primary process is administered. Even the dissenting justices in this case appear to agree that finding of insurrection can trigger the enforcement of Colorado State law to remove someone from the ballot.

So having participated in an insurrection absolutely can be a factor that’s pertinent to legal decisions about his eligibility, and in fact it’s that very connection that seems to be the entire point of Colorado’s state level law disqualifying insurrectionists from electoral office.

I mostly agree with you - Republicans participating in insurrection should be disqualified from seeking higher office, and one of the best weapons to safeguard our democracy is our legal system.

There are a bunch of other states that tried to disqualify Trump, and Trump’s legal team has won almost every time. He lost basically every case about overturning the election, but when it comes to being allowed to be on the ballot he has mostly won.