Current Events > Will hivemind liberals at least admit they were wrong about this?

(+) Yeah! (+)

--Zero- posted...

None of us libs believed it didnt come from a lab. It was always a possibility. The whole point of stopping people from saying that it was from a lab was to try and discredit conspiracy theorists from making up stories so it went along with the Trump supporter agenda. It was all about waiting until the truth came out which it still hasnt fully. It was acknowledged now and that is the straw TC is balancing on it seems.

If it was always acknowledged to be possible why ban it's discussion as "debunked" "misinformation" and "known to be false"?

---

joe40001 posted...

I hope you didn't start your master's thesis with "It's cute that the people who disagree with me think..."

If you are so confident in your intellectual integrity make a specific falsifiable statement about gain of function research and it's potential effect on COVID19.

I've got a better one, explain to me how you are simultaneously asking about if this lab can genetically modify viruses, while claiming that you are only defending the people who weren't making claims about a genetic modification origin?

Because, guess what, covid-19 being genetically modified is known to be false. At least to the extent by which you are assuming such a process would be possible at that lab.

---

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Can you imagine having Donald Trump's tiny sweaty fist so far up in there that you consider this a win?

Conservatives called it a certainty when they had zero evidence, now theyre calling it a certainty while theres still zero evidence and its merely considered "not impossible".

Of all the people to get conservative America on their knees and ready to service, you guys simp for DONALD TRUMP?

Are you claiming I'm a conservative or that I like Trump?

---

DarkRoast posted...

I've got a better one, explain to me how you are simultaneously asking about if this lab can genetically modify viruses, while claiming that you are only defending the people who weren't making claims about a genetic modification origin?

Because, guess what, covid-19 being genetically modified is known to be false. At least to the extent by which you are assuming such a process would be possible at that lab.

I believe I said "altered" and was not specific about how that alteration took place.

Are you claiming that "covid-19 was altered in a lab in meaningful way" is known to be false?

---

joe40001 posted...

As I understand it what you are saying is "we should have suppressed discussion of the truth because racists might latch on to it and use it to racist ends." Is that a correct interpretation of this statement?

Also how is saying it originated in a Chinese lab racist and saying it originated in a Chinese wet market not racist?

Finally why are you intimating that my defense of the right of people to discuss a realistic possibility is a defense of racist assholes?

1 - Nobody was stopping you from having a thoughtful discussion anywhere about this. You seem to be suggesting that Facebook and the "Liberal Hive Mind" was somehow stopping discussion of the issue. Do you HONESTLY think that posting, "I was wondering what the recent scientific research on the origins of the Covid-19 virus suggests in regards to if it was being researched in a lab by the Chinese government or not" on Facebook was going to be suppressed? And not just labeled as potential misinformation, but suppressed?

Your argument entirely hinges on the idea that LIBERALS were actively suppressing discussion by scientists about this issue. Do you have any shred of evidence to suggest that a thoughtful discussion based on scientific fact was not being allowed to be made? If you have that evidence and not just the whole, "Facebook would flag posts about it as potential misinformation", I would love to see it.

Your whole argument is predicated on this situation happening. If this is not the case then you are creating an argument for something that was not happening.

2 - I'm always in favor of discussing the truth. However when that is being used as an excuse to promote hate crimes it needs to be addressed. When the discussion around something is being manipulated by a large segment of the population to promote racism it should be labeled as potential misinformation. If that means a thoughtful post with scientific nuance gets flagged as "POTENTIALLY MISINFORMATION", wouldn't a thoughtful scientific person find that a suitable thing to have to ensure that people using the argument to promote racism are getting their posts removed? Why are you so afraid of having a label that just means that message will be given a once-over by moderation?

3 - Were you ever personally STOPPED from having this discussion? As in, Facebook banned your account, GameFAQS removed your ability to discuss it, etc. etc. You're discussing it right now and nothing has happened. I have seen posts since the start of the pandemic of people having intellectual conversations. You are suggesting this is a widespread effort to silence you. You have provided no evidence to suggest this has ever happened to you.

---

joe40001 posted...

I believe I said "altered" and was not specific about how that alteration took place.

Are you claiming that "covid-19 was altered in a lab in meaningful way" is known to be false?

Casual reminder that the ability to ask a question doesn't make that question legitimate, or worth answering. The very questions you're asking are predicated on concepts and technology that basically don't exist in the way you're implying, therefore it's actually your job to explain why such a question could even be posited.

How do you KNOW aliens didn't kill JFK with a space laser?

The irony that you are asking the very kind of question that needed to be censored on Facebook and Twitter is not lost on me.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Casual reminder that the ability to ask a question doesn't make that question legitimate, or worth answering. The very questions you're asking are predicated on concepts and technology that basically don't exist in the way you're implying, therefore it's actually your job to explain why such a question could even be posited.

How do you KNOW aliens didn't kill JFK with a space laser?

The irony that you are asking the very kind of question that needed to be censored on Facebook and Twitter is not lost on me.

I'm going to take that as a yes.

DarkRoast asserts: "Covid-19 was altered in a lab in meaningful way" = known to be false, in fact so false it's worth comparing to aliens shooting JFK with a space laser

---

We're reaching Peak Dunning-Kruger

---

joe40001 posted...

I'm going to take that as a yes.

DarkRoast asserts: "Covid-19 was altered in a lab in meaningful way" = known to be false, in fact so false it's worth comparing to aliens shooting JFK with a space laser

This is definitely not the take-down you think it is haha.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

1 - Nobody was stopping you from having a thoughtful discussion anywhere about this. You seem to be suggesting that Facebook and the "Liberal Hive Mind" was somehow stopping discussion of the issue. Do you HONESTLY think that posting, "I was wondering what the recent scientific research on the origins of the Covid-19 virus suggests in regards to if it was being researched in a lab by the Chinese government or not" on Facebook was going to be suppressed? And not just labeled as potential misinformation, but suppressed?

Yes. I think it was facebook's policy/behavior to try to ban discussion that suggested that COVID originated in Chinese lab.

2 - I'm always in favor of discussing the truth. However when that is being used as an excuse to promote hate crimes it needs to be addressed.

The hate part is the problem, not the truth part.

When the discussion around something is being manipulated by a large segment of the population to promote racism it should be labeled as potential misinformation.

This does not make sense to me. Something's truth value is not a function of how often it is invoked in the name of racism. Only the racist claims attached to it are potential misinformation, not the truth itself.

If that means a thoughtful post with scientific nuance gets flagged as "POTENTIALLY MISINFORMATION", wouldn't a thoughtful scientific person find that a suitable thing to have to ensure that people using the argument to promote racism are getting their posts removed?

1. Not if it is taken down entirely. 2. No because that implies their statement is less credible when it isn't. Or at least I like to think many scientists wouldn't compromise on what the truth is to appease "anti-racism". The truth is the truth, the discussions of how racists invoke the truth is orthogonal to the discussion of everybody's right to freely discuss the true possiblities.

Why are you so afraid of having a label that just means that message will be given a once-over by moderation?

1. Posts were taken down. 2. If it's not potential misinformation any more than any other scientific claim it should not be labelled as such. 3. Posts labeled as misinformation are posted in lower in people's feeds (src: https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2021/facebook-blocks-coronavirus-misinformation.html ) 4. Posts labeled as misinformation that you had to click to view were not clicked through to by like 50-70+% of people.

So much more happened than "a moderator gave it a once over." You know the scale of facebook, you know they seldom have a human thoughtfully engaging with their mechanisms.

3 - Were you ever personally STOPPED from having this discussion? As in, Facebook banned your account,

Why is the bar suddenly so high as it has to result in account banning for it to be a bad thing?

Anyway I don't use facebook, the dystopian shit i talk about in this topic is part of but not all of why.

GameFAQS removed your ability to discuss it, etc. etc. You're discussing it right now and nothing has happened. I have seen posts since the start of the pandemic of people having intellectual conversations. You are suggesting this is a widespread effort to silence you. You have provided no evidence to suggest this has ever happened to you.

I don't believe I made any claims that any of this dumb policy was targeting me. Just that it was a horrible and wrong policy that negatively impacted many people who were arguing for something that is a true possibility, and that the liberal hivemind defended it and then in the past 2 weeks instantly and without self-awareness switched their stance on the issue.

---

COVxy posted...

This is definitely not the take-down you think it is haha.

So are you also saying that statement is "known to be false"?

---

Did you actually look at the list of statements in the link you provided? Only one of them is about the nature of the virus, and the statement was, The coronavirus is actually a bioweapon.

Do you think that it is a negative to remove such a comment on Facebook?

---

joe40001 posted...

So are you also saying that statement is "known to be false"?

Already stated that earlier in the topic, after you finally responded to my question. Of course, false meaning no evidence points to any reason to believe so, despite explicit consideration. And argument against that tends to be in the realm of aliens assasinating JFK, to be clear.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Your argument entirely hinges on the idea that LIBERALS were actively suppressing discussion by scientists about this issue. Do you have any shred of evidence to suggest that a thoughtful discussion based on scientific fact was not being allowed to be made? If you have that evidence and not just the whole, "Facebook would flag posts about it as potential misinformation", I would love to see it.

Are you claiming that such things don't exist? Or put alternatively if I provide such links will you make a concession that I was right in some way that you are not currently conceding? Because while I have been exposed to such things I don't have it all trivially on hand, so looking it up and cataloging it for you will take a non-trivial amount of time.

---

joe40001 posted...

Are you claiming that such things don't exist? Or put alternatively if I provide such links will you make a concession that I was right in some way that you are not currently conceding? Because while I have been exposed to such things I don't have it all trivially on hand, so looking it up and cataloging it for you will take a non-trivial amount of time.

People making a claim have the burden of proof. You screaming at the top of your lungs that "______ is happening!" need to provide evidence it is happening.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Did you actually look at the list of statements in the link you provided? Only one of them is about the nature of the virus, and the statement was, The coronavirus is actually a bioweapon.

Do you think that it is a negative to remove such a comment on Facebook?

I'm very pro-free speech but if I put that aside to I can answer this question more cleanly:
No I don't think that has any evidence to support it. So if I'm ok with taking down dangerous claims with no evidence to support them, I'm ok with removing such a comment.

But consider what you are implying. Or think of it this way:

If this was the policy
"Facebook bans the following misinformation:

1. Vaccines cause autism
2. 9/11 was an inside job
3. Murdering puppies is a bad thing
4. The election was stolen

"

I think you'd recognize somebody taking issue with that policy is not therefore an idiot who believes 1, 2, and 4.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

People making a claim have the burden of proof. You screaming at the top of your lungs that "______ is happening!" need to provide evidence it is happening.

In theory I don't. In theory I can just say something I believe to be true and it's truth value is not determined by how many hours I spend trying to convince people who actively aren't interested in being convinced.

If I want to persuade people I absolutely have to provide evidence, I already provided some, but if you are looking for more evidence or evidence of this specific kind, I'd like to hear that you are even open to being persuaded before I spend a considerable amount of time gathering that evidence.

So are you open to being persuaded by evidence? Are you willing to say "what Joe said happened, did indeed happen at least a few times" if I provide you links/evidence of it happening?

---

joe40001 posted...

In theory I don't. In theory I can just say something I believe to be true and it's truth value is not determined by how many hours I spend trying to convince people who actively aren't interested in being convinced.

If I want to persuade people I absolutely have to provide evidence, I already provided some, but if you are looking for more evidence or evidence of this specific kind, I'd like to hear that you are even open to being persuaded before I spend a considerable amount of time gathering that evidence.

So are you open to being persuaded by evidence? Are you willing to say "what Joe said happened, did indeed happen at least a few times" if I provide you links/evidence of it happening?

I agree that there are likely scenarios in which someone posted something that was innocuous that was incorrectly removed. Take Youtube as an example. With an automated system that is tasked with automatically flagging and removing videos that may be against their TOS, there are thousands of hours of content being uploaded every minute. That automation process is bound to do something wrong. The same will of course happen on Facebook as there is simply FAR too much content for human eyes to vet all of it.

This is why the system is designed to be able to dispute claims or reach out to an actual person and ask for clarification. Is it potentially "annoying" to go through these processes? Of course it is. That being said, Facebook as a company is starting to be held responsible for what their users are posting. If Facebook is being held legally responsible to some sort of degree their trepidation is warranted.

You would need to provide me credible proof that Facebook actively sought out and silenced rational public discourse about the nature of how the virus came to be in the state it was in. Not an automated system that will inevitably have problems, but a concentrated effort by Facebook to silence people.

That, to me, is the claim you are making. If that is happening on a not insignificant basis then your claims are warranted and verified and require further exploration into what Facebook (in this example) was doing. 100%

EDIT - An additional question I have for you on this subject. Given that Facebook is starting to be held responsible for the content on its platform (ie: Russians buying advertisements and spreading misinformation about the 2016 election) do you feel it is appropriate for Facebook to be active in their pursuit of monitoring potential issues and removing them?

---

joe40001 posted...

If it was always acknowledged to be possible why ban it's discussion as "debunked" "misinformation" and "known to be false"?

I already explained why.

---

@joe40001 Maybe when republicant's admit to the Jan 6th coup.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I agree that there are likely scenarios in which someone posted something that was innocuous that was incorrectly removed. Take Youtube as an example. With an automated system that is tasked with automatically flagging and removing videos that may be against their TOS, there are thousands of hours of content being uploaded every minute. That automation process is bound to do something wrong. The same will of course happen on Facebook as there is simply FAR too much content for human eyes to vet all of it.

This is why the system is designed to be able to dispute claims or reach out to an actual person and ask for clarification. Is it potentially "annoying" to go through these processes? Of course it is. That being said, Facebook as a company is starting to be held responsible for what their users are posting. If Facebook is being held legally responsible to some sort of degree their trepidation is warranted.

You would need to provide me credible proof that Facebook actively sought out and silenced rational public discourse about the nature of how the virus came to be in the state it was in. Not an automated system that will inevitably have problems, but a concentrated effort by Facebook to silence people.

That, to me, is the claim you are making. If that is happening on a not insignificant basis then your claims are warranted and verified and require further exploration into what Facebook (in this example) was doing. 100%

That is not exactly the claim I am making. It is much more something like this: (Starts at 1:10 to 2:25)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFvqDaFpXeM&t=70s

It's like facebook released that into the world of speech and then was like "whoops... but to fair policing speech at scale is hard." I think the automated machine they released silenced "misinformation" with low accuracy partially because they gave it poor guiding directives, and because whatever human safe-guards they had in place (if they even existed) were likely only manual reviews by some of the same kinds of people you see in a topic like this. Something like "are they actually suggesting it could have come from a lab? My directive says that's debunked conspiracy theories so I'm upholding this ban"

I believe there are many multiple reports of reasonable content being labeled or taken down in a way that is completely unchallengeable. It is unclear if this was done end-to-end automatically or if there was some inept programmer or reviewer but the effect was the same.

I'm less concerned if an ED 209 they released in the streets is killing innocent people accidentally or due to their nefarious goals, and more concerned that we all get on the same page and say it was wrong of them to release that ED 209 in the first place.

EDIT - An additional question I have for you on this subject. Given that Facebook is starting to be held responsible for the content on its platform (ie: Russians buying advertisements and spreading misinformation about the 2016 election) do you feel it is appropriate for Facebook to be active in their pursuit of monitoring potential issues and removing them?

This is a separate and interesting question. I believe we could have a long discussion of this but i don't want to sidetrack this too much. But in effect I have very little sympathy for facebook because far and away the easiest way they could fight misinformation is to tweak their algorithm away against "engagement" (aka conflict and sensationalism) and towards dry respectful fact based discussion, but that would cost them so much money so they aren't going to consider it for a second.

---

Ah yes.

The academic movie, Robocop.

What a great source.


---

joe40001 posted...

"The possibility that it came from a lab" is now acknowledged to be true.

No it isn't

Shut the fuck up

---

ooger posted...

@joe40001 Maybe when republicant's admit to the Jan 6th coup.

Me: "Hey liberals stop shooting yourself in the foot!"
Ooger: "Only when republicans stop doing it too!"

---

--Zero- posted...

I already explained why.

If you are of the mind that banning responsible discussion of possibly true things as "false misinformation" is appropriate if it's done so in the right spirit then you and I are very far apart.

---

@joe40001

---

joe40001 posted...

Me: "Hey liberals stop shooting yourself in the foot!"
Ooger: "Only when republicans stop doing it too!"

I'm glad you agree that Republicant's attempted a violent coup against our democracy.

Now do something about it, coward.

---

ooger posted...

I'm glad you agree that Republicant's attempted a violent coup against our democracy.

Now do something about it, coward.

He will try to return and get it done

---

Kim Kusanagi posted...

@joe40001

If you think I am wrong state specifically where I am wrong. Otherwise right back at ya, buddy.

---

Kim Kusanagi posted...

He will try to return and get it done

@joe40001 isn't man enough.

---

ooger posted...

I'm glad you agree that Republicant's attempted a violent coup against our democracy.

Hivemind republicans are like hivemind democrats.

To hivemind republicans they weren't attempting a violent coup, to them they are fighting a stolen election. To of them the "truth" was that the election was stolen and democracy itself was at risk.

With facebook, hivemind liberals weren't trying to silence responsible speech about the lab leak hypothesis, to them such speech didn't exist. To them the "truth" was that all speech suggesting that COVID might have originated in Chinese lab was racist and false.

And so they both blindly follow. And everybody is worse off for it.

I'm pro-critical thinking, I'm anti all this hivemind bullshit.

Now do something about it, coward.

Like what?

---

joe40001 posted...

Hivemind republicans are like hivemind democrats.

To hivemind republicans they weren't attempting a violent coup, to them they are fighting a stolen election. To of them the "truth" was that the election was stolen and democracy itself was at risk.

With facebook, hivemind liberals weren't trying to silence responsible speech about the lab leak hypothesis, to them such speech didn't exist. To them the "truth" was that all speech suggesting that COVID might have originated in Chinese lab was racist and false.

And so they both blindly follow. And everybody is worse off for it.

I'm pro-critical thinking, I'm anti all this hivemind bullshit.

Like what?

Cool story little buddy, we bet.

Mashes 'X' to doubt.

---

joe40001 posted...

If you think I am wrong state specifically where I am wrong.

At Post New Message

---

joe40001 posted...

Hivemind republicans are like hivemind democrats.

To hivemind republicans they weren't attempting a violent coup, to them they are fighting a stolen election. To of them the "truth" was that the election was stolen and democracy itself was at risk.

With facebook, hivemind liberals weren't trying to silence responsible speech about the lab leak hypothesis, to them such speech didn't exist. To them the "truth" was that all speech suggesting that COVID might have originated in Chinese lab was racist and false.

And so they both blindly follow. And everybody is worse off for it.

I'm pro-critical thinking, I'm anti all this hivemind bullshit.

Can we agree that while both are examples of people not using their critical thinking, one results in people just being kinda stupid while the other resulted in people committing violent acts acts trying a violent coup on the US government?

Definitely LOTS of people do not engage in critical thinking. The negative consequences of people who aren't scientists not wanting to talk about the potential of a lab leak is just (IMO) that a bunch of people who don't really care won't be informed. That is bad but it isn't anywhere near the negative consequences of you know, trying to overthrow the government.

In principal I agree with the thought that everyone should engage in more critical thinking. It is one of my focuses as a teacher. That being said, you have to also look at outcomes. You can't put the results of the lack of critical thinking all at the same level.

---

Kim Kusanagi posted...

At Post New Message

You know what you are doing, anybody can do, right?

"You never should have said anything, stfu" is not an argument. It's not making any claim. It's just you being a douche.

---

Or maybe your topic is just plain bad.

Yep that is it.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Can we agree that while both are examples of people not using their critical thinking, one results in people just being kinda stupid while the other resulted in people committing violent acts acts trying a violent coup on the US government?

No, I think by limiting the ability to openly discuss the lab leak hypothesis without getting called a crackpot quack racist (by facebook and other places) we very well could have prevented investigations into the origins and nature of the disease that could have saved lives. I believe there is like a 80+% chance that because lab leak hypothesis discussion has been taboo relevant research was not conducted that otherwise would have been. And I believe there is like a 1% or more chance such research would have provided insights that could have saved lets say 100 minimum lives.

Obviously those percentages are loose ballparks, but you do the math that's an expected value of more lives lost because of considering lab leak racist crackpot nonsense for over a year than were lost at the capitol riots were were also obviously bad.

And the upper bound to how much help such not done research could have done is much much greater.

Definitely LOTS of people do not engage in critical thinking. The negative consequences of people who aren't scientists not wanting to talk about the potential of a lab leak is just (IMO) that a bunch of people who don't really care won't be informed. That is bad but it isn't anywhere near the negative consequences of you know, trying to overthrow the government.

Like I said above, they are different considerations, but I think you are far undervaluing the negative consequences of banning possible things as "known to be false"

In principal I agree with the thought that everyone should engage in more critical thinking. It is one of my focuses as a teacher. That being said, you have to also look at outcomes. You can't put the results of the lack of critical thinking all at the same level.

IMO that you can see the dangers of rubber stamping uncritical thinking should put you more on my side not less. Hivemind people are why we have the capitol riots, hivemind people are why we have "vaccines cause autism", but hivemind people are also why we have "the idea that this originated in a Chinese laboratory is a racist crackpot conspiracy" and hivemind people are also why we have "the exact solution to racism was laid out by Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi"

---

ooger posted...

Or maybe your topic is just plain bad.

Yep that is it.

Or maybe your post is just plain bad

See how this dumb this is? See how it contributes nothing?

---

joe40001 posted...

Or maybe your post is just plain bad

See how this dumb this is? See how it contributes nothing?

Correct.

Now you get it.

Your topic and posts are all obviously made in bad faith and contribute nothing.

---

ooger posted...

Correct.

Now you get it.

Your topic and posts are all obviously made in bad faith and contribute nothing.

Except the detailed arguments painstakingly laid out. And the evidence. And the specific articulation of my perspective and responses to criticism. And everything else that provides merit to an argument.

But yes, aside from everything that provides merit to an argument, my posts are completely meritless and contribute nothing.

---

joe40001 posted...

Except the detailed arguments painstakingly laid out. And the evidence. And the specific articulation of my perspective and responses to criticism. And everything else that provides merit to an argument.

But yes, aside from everything that provides merit to an argument, my posts are completely meritless and contribute nothing.

Bro, your topic title has "hivemind liberals" in it.

Nothing about your post were painstakingly done.

If you decided to use a GPT-3 powered bot to post, no one would notice.

---

ooger posted...

Bro, your topic title has "hivemind liberals" in it.

Nothing about your post were painstakingly done.

If you decided to use a GPT-3 powered bot to post, no one would notice.

Tell me somewhere I said something false.

---

joe40001 posted...

Tell me somewhere I said something false.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/10-ask-the-mods/68526460

---

ooger posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/10-ask-the-mods/68526460

The implication being that everything I have said is false. But in post 291 you said I was correct about my previous statement. So you are contradicting yourself.

---

Anyone else remember a number of years ago when joe numbers decided he was going to try and troll CE by claiming he was going on an "all-water diet" for like 2 weeks or some length of time?

Literally no one bought it but the guy posted "updates" literally multiple times a day for the entirety of the claimed time period and then once it got near the end said he'd keep going and eventually just dropped it out of nowhere because again, literally no one ever bought it from the start. Like it was beyond pathetic.

Also

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/vita/678611-metal-gear-solid-3-snake-eater-hd-edition/faqs/34016

Unfortunately, I do have a life (albeit a pathetic one) outside of GameFaqs

---

Lol.

Big. Yikes.

---

Bio1590 posted...

Anyone else remember a number of years ago when joe numbers decided he was going to try and troll CE by claiming he was going on an "all-water diet" for like 2 weeks or some length of time?

Literally no one bought it but the guy posted "updates" literally multiple times a day for the entirety of the claimed time period and then once it got near the end said he'd keep going and eventually just dropped it out of nowhere because again, literally no one ever bought it from the start. Like it was beyond pathetic.

I did and still do occasionally water fast, some people cared some people didn't. I don't know what "not believing it" accomplishes. Or how I could "prove" it to you. But mostly I don't know how that is at all relevant to this current discussion.

You need to make your ad hominins more clear if they are going to stick, bro.

---

joe40001 posted...

I did and still do occasionally water fast, some people cared some people didn't. I don't know what "not believing it" accomplishes. Or how I could "prove" it to you. But mostly I don't know how that is at all relevant to this current discussion.

You need to make your ad hominins more clear if they are going to stick, bro.

Because you always have been and always will be a joke poster that literally no one should ever take seriously.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Because you always have been and always will be a joke poster that literally no one should ever take seriously.

Why are you so threatened by people taking me seriously?

---

They never will

---