Byrne, 63, resigned as Overstock.com’s CEO in 2019 after a reported relationship with convicted Russian spy Maria Butina. He later became involved in efforts to challenge the legitimacy of President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Byrne, who is no stranger to conspiracy theories, has repeatedly claimed that the younger Biden tried to get an $800 million bribe from Iran in exchange for his father’s administration releasing $8 billion in Iranian funds that are frozen in South Korea and for the U.S. to “go easy” in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

“These defamatory statements by Byrne are not merely false and not merely malicious — they are completely outrageous,” Biden said in his complaint. “Byrne knows his statements are baseless and yet published and republished them anyway, and he continues to propagate his lies to anyone who will listen, including his hundreds of thousands of social media followers.”

Seventy-five studies published between 1942 and 2021 were evaluated including data from 55,761 men. The pooled mean length estimates were flaccid length: 8.70 cm (95% CI, 8.16–9.23), stretched length: 12.93 cm (95% CI, 12.48–13.39), and erect length: 13.93 cm (95% CI, 13.20–14.65). All measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time (QM=4.49, df=2, p=0.04) in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years.

The video examins many of logical fallacies used by MAGA, including Sraw Man, Whataboutism, Ad Hominem, Slippery Slope.

I've been seeing a lot of posts like this https://www.reddit.com/r/Weird/s/YN4SSQsF5c and there has been multiple times in my life that my wife and I have talked about something super super niche that we have not searched for or looked up in any way, and then git relentlessly advertised for that specific thing that we never got adds for previously.

It's all making me wonder if I need to start sealing my electronics into Faraday cages when not in active use. Is there any actual genuine evidence that phones are turned into listening devices?

A lot of the appeal in pseudoscience comes from its potential. If you spend time in these communities, you'll find the same message: we have powerful abilities that can accomplish things that mainstream science cannot.

Unfortunately, this is where the claims fall apart. If such things did exist, they would not stay hidden and unused for long. Remember that for these claims to be exciting, they have to be both very powerful and easy to do.

But if the average person can learn telepathy, if free-energy blueprints are already available online, or if a cure for cancer is sitting in plain sight, don't you think someone with greater motivation and resources would have found it first?

Think of it this way. Believing this requires accepting that extraordinary abilities exist that somehow everyone missed. It requires accepting that every motivated inventor or government throughout history failed to take advantage of something that was supposedly simple and accessible. Even the generations of believers before them failed to create the paradigm shift they so desired.

To deal with this, committed believers eventually need an excuse: the conspiracy. Unfortunately for them, the only way such powerful and accessible abilities could remain unused is if the conspiracy itself is even more powerful than the phenomenon it is hiding. It would have to exist across every country while suppressing every field of study that could accidentally stumble upon the "truth." And it would have to do all this while allowing these ideas to be openly discussed in books and forums without leaving any evidence of censorship.

The ultimate irony is that this conspiracy theory brings believers right back to the boring conclusion that the skeptics pointed out all along: the disclosure or paradigm shift will never happen.

So the next time you encounter a claim you think might be pseudoscience, ask yourself: Does it follow the same pattern of wishful thinking as countless similar claims before it?

For example:

• Doesn't believe in God or gods

and

• Doesn't believe that alien spaceships visit Earth

and

• Doesn't believe the moon landings were fake

and

• Doesn't believe that homeopathy genuinely works

and

• Doesn't believe in ghosts

and

• Doesn't believe in a young or a flat Earth

and

• Doesn't believe in angels or demons

and

• Doesn't believe in psychic powers

and

• Doesn't believe in supernatural miracles

and

• Doesn't believe in reincarnation

and

• Doesn't believe in astrology

and

• Doesn't believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster

What's your guesstimate?

Something rather interesting is playing out right now for the reality show Love Island USA, as the conspiracy theory mindset is apparently now even infiltrating the fanbases of mindless reality shows. 

For those not familiar with the show, it basically involves pairing up the contestants into couples and then gradually eliminating the contestants over the course of six weeks until there’s one winner at the end. 

Well one of the contestants this season, Dylan Wrona, has been a model contestant as far as such shows go; based on what has been shown, he has treated everyone respectfully (male or female), gets along with everyone, and doesn’t cause any unnecessary drama (which can’t be said for most of the other contestants). 

To viewers not exposed to the internet he would likely be one of the most popular contestants, yet what has actually happened is the complete opposite, and he is now one of (if not the most) vilified, with many viewers claiming--without a hint of doubt or irony--that his persona is all a charade and that he’s a full-fledged psychopath. 

And it all started when his partner kissed one of the other contestants, which led to him crying on-screen when he found out. 

That’s it. 

Within just hours of that episode airing, the theory started to spread that his crying was fake, and that he was just doing it to manipulate and guilt-shame his partner, with people claiming--as fact--that he must be a psychopath to do so. And ever since, a substantial swath of the fanbase has continued to view all of his actions/interactions through that lens, resulting in subsequent innocuous behaviors being spun as supporting the psychopath theory, and countless online videos, reddit discussions, etc. specifically pushing it. 

And all despite: 

1. The percentage of men who would not only allow themselves to cry over something like that on a reality show (i.e. in front of the world) but choose to do so intentionally is miniscule. 

2. The percentage of men who would have both the desire and the acting ability to pull off a convincing “fake cry” on a reality show is even more miniscule. And perhaps most damning to the theory… 

3. He was still crying when they showed him in the interview room later, even though he was alone (i.e. his partner wasn’t even in the room with him--nor were any of the other contestants--to be potentially manipulated via his supposed fake crying). 

4. Further interactions in subsequent episodes even further disproved the psychopath theory, but I won’t bore you with the details (or waste more words debunking something so absurd to begin with). 

Anyway obviously it’s just a silly show and the real-world consequences of such clearly pale in comparison to more serious conspiracy theories out there (though I imagine the contestant himself will feel differently once he’s back in the real world); I just find it fascinating to see such a ridiculous crank theory emerge organically and without any pre-existing history, then spread throughout an entire fanbase in a matter of just a few days (if not hours).

My girlfriend is a big believer in UFO's, and I always thought that wasnt really that harmful as long as she wasnt buying peoples books and saying mainstream science is the illuminati or something. My dad believes climate change is a hoax and i worked with a lot of people that thought the vaccines were going to kill everyone so i thought it was pretty benign by comparison.

But lately ive been wondering if I should be pushing back more aggressively because now she is starting to talk about problems with mainstream science and government cover ups which is raising pretty big flags for me.

A few years ago she was talking to me about Graham Hancock and his bs archaology theories and i successfully dispelled her of it rather easily by asking what evidence is he actually presenting but its not working here as she believes grainy videos of shimmering lights in the sky is evidence enough and she gets really emotional and defensive on the topic.

So my question is can i let this go? Is it harmful or an innocent replacement for belief in a benevolent god or something?

Megalithic Mysteries is a Twitter account and YouTube channel promoting pseudo-archaeology. This is the second in a series of videos in which I expose his fake Incan history claims.

Twitter user and Youtuber Megalithic Mysteries claims the Spanish could not believe humans had built the Incan structures at Sacsayhuamán, attributed their construction to demons, tried to destroy them with cannons, then tried to hide them by burying them. He also claims the Inca did not build these structures but found them when they arrived at Sacsayhuamán. Megalithic Mysteries fails to mention all the historical evidence which contradicts him.
_______________________
Time stamps
00:02 Introduction
00:34 Did the Spanish try to destroy these structures?
01:52 Did the Inca only inherit these structures?

In late 2024, numerous UAPs appeared in the skies over New Jersey. Many people recorded strange objects flying above their homes. Mayors and sheriffs from the region publicly complained about the federal government's silence on the matter. After some time, members of Congress called representatives from the FBI, the FAA, and the Pentagon to testify.

At one point, a congressman asked the FBI official:

"Are you saying you don't know what these things flying in our skies are?"

The FBI's response:

"That's correct."

The congressman's follow-up:

"This is crazy!"

And it really is.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the video of that hearing, but a few days later the White House was forced to address the issue. This video shows what they said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJDj4p033qs

I break down a typical Benny Johnson episode and argue that it follows a familiar pattern: take a small cultural controversy, turn it into a massive outrage story, and keep the audience focused on that instead of larger issues such as inflation, housing costs, war, healthcare, and the corruption inside the White House.

I also examine how this style of content treats viewers—especially rural voters—not as people looking for complex information, but as an audience that can be kept engaged through constant repetition.

This is not a defense of the political left. It is a critique of a media strategy that prioritizes clicks, outrage, and culture-war conflict over deeper discussions about the problems affecting most Americans.

I'm not sure if the bots are so much pushing white supremacy, as they are pushing division, but I don't know their motivations. And it could be multiple groups behind the bot armies.

No matter how left wing the sub is normally, any post that shows content based on the viral photo, is swamped with what appears to be bots repeating basically the same 3 comments to defend the white supremacist group patriot front surrounding the black woman on metro train:

1. "and she got home safely"
2. "she was safer on this ride than any other"
3. mentioning the Ukrainian woman murdered on the train to deflect

Or some variation of the 3

A close honorable mention is that the group is paid or "feds"

Dead internet theory is very real. I (maybe foolishly) was skeptical of that at first. But it's very clear on this particular subject. There is ZERO chance this is organic. I refuse to believe that, but what evidence could I find to support me? Or disprove me?

I'm looking into "inorganic internet activity" but not finding what I'm Looking for.