58 karma · joined February 13, 2021
> The United States Supreme Court will be looking into election fraud lawsuits during its Feb. 19 conference. These lawsuits include two cases filed by the Trump campaign and one case, each filed by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and Republican Representative Mike Kelly.
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
*edit: Responding to a comment below,
> I very much doubt he even won the election
We have to be extremely careful when alleging election fraud. I think that may be perceived to be divisive. It would be more fruitful to directly link to the individual allegations instead:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/12/what-youve-been-asking-f...
In 2 days, SCOTUS will hear some of these cases:
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/328193/donald-trump-michelle-ob...
> Overall, 18% of Americans name Trump, 15% name Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci.
I do find it a tad bit curious that Biden, with a mere 6% approval rate, was certified to have won the election and Trump apparently lost it when he had thrice Biden's approval rate.
It is about financial scams, and not disinformation per se. Specifically it reports, "Older adults were the least likely of any age group to report losing money to scams. But when older consumers experience consumer fraud, their reported financial losses were greater than what younger consumers reported.".
They also report on the specific scams older people tend to fall prey to, namely: "older adults were more likely than younger consumers to report losing money on tech support scams, prize, sweepstakes & lottery scams, and family & friend impersonation. Phone scams did the most financial damage. And while gift cards became the payment of choice for scammers, wire transfers still take the top spot for total dollars paid.".
How did you generalize all of this into saying that "older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people."? Do you have direct evidence for that?
I think we have to be careful when trying to paint an entire group of people in this discriminatory way, especially without evidence, which is probably what parent comment was getting at.
In Canada for example the laws are quite controversial, regardless of political affiliation:
> The controversy around the issue lies in the reasoning behind Canada’s top court decision that proclaimed Bill Whatcott, a Christian evangelist, guilty of hate speech because of the language he used to refer to homosexuality.
> But in order to protect homosexuals from being perceived negatively, the Supreme Court went too far in infringing on freedom of speech, and of religion, critics said.
> This criticism came from both left and right, caused by the way the judge in charge of the case explained the ruling.
> “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction,” the judge wrote at the time.
https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-to-use-controversial-suprem...
Likewise in other countries, such as Scotland:
> ... famed comedian Rowan Atkinson and 20 others, including actors, philosophers, and writers, working with Humanist Society Scotland, see it as posing danger to freedom of expression, because the new legislation aims to introduce the offense of “stirring up hatred” without taking into account if hatred was the intent, bringing with it the danger of criminalizing and jailing people simply for their controversial views, the article said of the artists’ concerns.
https://reclaimthenet.org/scotland-hate-speech-bill-pushback...
Brilliant quote illustrating schadenfreude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Wikipedia is an interesting subculture of its own. Here is a fun fact involving its cofounder, Larry Sanger: his own criticism of the encyclopedia is banned from it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_...
That's interesting. Gab.com's timeline is public and is visible to everyone (there is no need to create an account). I just took a peek at it right now and I don't see anything misogynistic, etc. As you quote this particular as a supporting reference, would you be able to share some of Gab's specific timeline content that made that comment writer think that?
> Colleen Oefelein, who identified herself on Twitter as an associate literary agent with the Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency, appeared to confirm her termination in a tweet on Monday morning.
> "Well thanks Twitter and @JDLitAgency," Oefelein wrote. "I just got fired because I'm a Christian and a conservative."
That's interesting. The public timeline on Gab is visible to everyone (there is no need to sign in). I just took a peek at it right now and I don't see anything misogynistic, etc. Would you mind sharing some of its specific timeline content that made you think that?
[1] This is also called "virtue signalling".
Take a look at their Team page at https://www.hangar.is/team and judge for yourself how "diverse" they currently are.
[1] https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neorac...