Opinionhaver @ Opinionhaver @feddit.uk

A contrarian isn’t one who always objects - that’s a confirmist of a differ

---

Read more

Posts

21

Comments

1,068

Joined

6 mo. ago

Investing in the stock market isn’t something exclusive to the rich. For someone like me, it’s pretty much the only realistic way to build any significant wealth for retirement. Without investing, I’d just be losing money to inflation by keeping it in a bank account. Now that I’ve got it invested, I’m already earning enough in returns to cover a few months’ wages each year. It makes no sense to want to take that possibility away from everyone just because you despise billionaires.

The stock market isn’t the root of all evil - it’s just one way for companies to raise money and for regular people to invest in those companies. Without it, businesses would still need funding, but the money would come from a much smaller circle of the ultra-rich and private investors. That would make the system less democratic, not more.

If we got rid of the stock market, we wouldn't get rid of corporate greed or wealth inequality. We’d just move them into darker, less transparent places - behind closed doors instead of in public view. Ordinary people would lose what little access they have to ownership and wealth-building. Rich people would still get richer, just in ways even harder to regulate.

So if the goal is to make the system fairer, abolishing the stock market isn’t the answer. Reforming it might be - but killing it outright would probably just make things worse.

They couldn't be much more popular than what they already are. Seems that nowdays it's rare to not have any.

By far the best ones have been those that I had not been invited to.

my SO actually wears only the bottom of the bikini and goes bra less to the beach, because she says it’s unfair I can free my nipples and she can not

Doesn't sound like she can't.

I only have the beer part of this equation figured out.

LLMs have no intentions. They only do what the user asks them to.

Well, I guess that depends on how one defines “rich.” To me, it means someone whose passive income exceeds their spending. What you’re describing, I’d call “wealthy - which is one or two steps above that.

Exactly. Millionaires aren’t the problem. That’s why I can’t stand these thought-terminating clichés like “eat the rich.”

Someone with even several hundred million to their name is dirt poor compared to billionaires.

Moderates: Crypto Mommy

Who the heck would pay for someone to come shilling for a product on a platform this niche?

Personally I wouldn't consider that very good. My pair of Haix Airpower P3's lasted me close to 15 years and I've put them through hell.

You're doing a lot of dodging here. The original comment you made wasn’t a neutral “observation” about AI’s impact on cognition - it was a blanket dismissal of people who criticize wokeness by claiming they're bots. That’s textbook ad hominem: attacking the people instead of engaging with what they're saying.

Since then, you’ve shifted the conversation multiple times - from AI and cognition, to whether “worldview” is the right word, to tone and intent - none of which address my original criticism: that dismissing someone as a bot simply for expressing a particular opinion is intellectually lazy and corrosive to actual discussion.

You can claim it's just “an observation” all you want, but the reality is that you made a personal attack in place of an argument. I'm not criticizing you for being mean - I'm criticizing you for sidestepping the discussion entirely.

If you think critics of wokeness are wrong, then show why. Don’t just insult them and pretend that counts as insight.

As far as I know, many of the judges Trump appointed during his first term are now making rulings against his interests - despite having been seen as “aligned” when appointed. So in other words: you can’t know. Just make sure they’re competent and fit for the task.

You can swap out "worldview" with any other term you like as that is neither relevant to the discussion. You're getting hung up on terms and completely ignoring the substance of my argument.

Nobody has claimed your views on AI count as a worldview, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion. The discussion is about you blanket dismissing everyone who criticizes “wokeness” as a bot.

Yes, really. You're effectively saying “everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot,” which is a textbook example of ad hominem - dismissing a position based on who is assumed to hold it rather than engaging with the argument itself. That kind of framing is both delusional and extremely bad faith.

To your question: no, what I said isn't ad hominem. Criticizing someone for making an ad hominem isn't the same thing. I'm not using a personal attack to avoid addressing your argument - I'm pointing out that you’re using personal attacks to avoid having one. There's a difference between attacking someone instead of responding to their point and calling out someone for refusing to make one.

Because I have no issues with YouTube. I'd much rather use American spyware than Chinese one.

All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.

Do we, though? I'm not sure if you've come across the Male Sedation Hypothesis but it basically argues that we should be seeing more violence from disenfranchised young men - and yet we aren’t. The hypothesis suggests that this is largely due to porn, video games, and drugs. Rather than acting out, many men are withdrawing from society into their mom’s basements, supplementing real-life relationships and career success with virtual equivalents.

Countering arguments with ad-hominem puts you right up there with AI bots when it comes to providing value to online discussions.