ObjectivityIncarnate

Google says Steam has 132 million monthly active users. Even if you count Pepe (which is absurd, the vast majority of use of it has nothing to do with anything hateful), that’s still far under 1% of users.

The tiny percentage of users of these apps doing this will have their outlier data completely ignored. Colossal waste of time and energy.

clicking on a weird video and you permanently scar your algorithm.

It’s trivial to delete individual videos from your watch history, even moreso if you just saw it. Doing so makes it as if you never clicked on it in the first place.

Yeah, what kind of dumbass strategy is this? Is OP trying to keep losing elections?

LAMF != selfawarewolves

It’s not LAMF unless the consequence they’re bemoaning is precisely the thing they intended to impose on others, not expecting it to be imposed on themself, too.

It’s very obvious said Trump voter wasn’t seeking the ACA to be taken away from only certain others (they clearly recognize that it doesn’t work that way), so no LAMF.

Both 2024 and 2016 were total punts by the Democratic party, elections that could have easily been won in large margins, but defeat pulled from the jaws of victory in a way that seemingly only they can.

People know if they live in battleground/swing states. And still, the fact is that despite Trump getting FEWER votes than last time (which is an election he LOST, by the way), he WON this time, simply because millions of blue voters in those key states decided they’d rather not vote at ALL, than vote for the Democrats’ candidate.

There is no excuse for the results of either of these elections, honestly. It’s fucking embarrassing.

It’s only a dilemma if you’re 12.

And what do you do about the fact that this magic wand doesn’t actually exist, and that net worth is just a price tag, not an amount of actual money? The supermarket doesn’t accept stocks as payment.

Also, the vast majority of billionaires’ investments don’t even pay dividends at all, they’re re-invested back into the business for further growth.

I wish people who knew nothing about economics didn’t pretend to have any idea what they’re talking about.

Their “philanthropy” would be entirely unneeded, if they simply paid their fair share back to society

The entirety of the net worth of all billionaires in the US (~$5 trillion), assuming a magic wand could magically convert the figure 1:1 into cash (big assumption being made in favor of your argument), would foot the bill of total US government’s welfare spending ($1.03 trillion: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf ) for five measly years.

So even if your definition of “fair share” for them is literally 100% of what they have, the quoted statement is extremely obviously untrue.

Not to mention that’s also assuming that that $1 trillion the government spends is enough to make philanthropy redundant, which it demonstrably isn’t.

One person earning $3600/hr, 24/7, without spending any of it, would take 31 years to become a billionaire.

Why are you using analogies that pretend compound interest doesn’t exist?

Even the best teacher on Earth can only teach so many students a year. You can’t become a billionaire without being able to ‘scale up’.

But, for example, someone who invents something that makes a common manufacturing process just a few % more efficient, can affect millions if not billions of products that millions if not billions of people around the world buy. Even a small increase in profit margin can aggregate to a huge amount of increased wealth.

If you create that level of aggregate value, then you absolutely have earned that aggregate sum.

Also, it is literally not possible to become a billionaire by simply underpaying employees. That’d be the same kind of linear increase used in all of the dumb ‘if you made $X every day for thousands of years (and interest didn’t exist for some reason)’ analogies, so I know the people who argue this do understand that linear growth doesn’t get you there in a lifetime.

P.S. if employees were such an automatic profit source, why does downsizing exist? If labor is a profit source, firing people is throwing money away.

It isn’t really absurd though, I don’t think. If one genuinely believes abortion is murder, it makes perfect sense for that person to not be pro-choice, the same way the rest of us are against people being allowed to legally kill newborns. Whether that individual person is capable of being pregnant does not actually factor into it at all, it’s just a matter of what one believes about how the unborn should be ‘considered’ (i.e. baby vs. ‘clump of cells’).

I have no problem with abortion, so I don’t agree with pro-lifers, but I am not at all confused by it. The opposition to abortion directly follows from their beliefs about the unborn.

That said, though the two are often conflated, just because someone is pro-choice doesn’t necessarily mean they’re okay with abortion, they could very well be someone who believes more strongly in the individual’s right to choose, than in everyone copying them. I’ve met a large number of women who are fiercely pro-choice but have said they couldn’t bear to abort their own pregnancy, even if it was unwanted.

It isn’t really shocking if you look at it objectively and see from their perspective for a moment.

A genuine pro-lifer, by definition, believes that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering a newborn, because the unborn is equivalent to a baby, to them.

So imagine how such a person would read what you just said:

It is perfectly fine being against murder for personal beliefs, but to be against giving others the choice to murder is shocking.

It’s understandable that the above sentiment would come off like the words of a madman.

Because there is truly no ‘debate’ to actually be had about whether or not one believes the unborn ‘count’ as babies, it’s completely futile to argue with pro-lifers on that axis.

Nor should one be surprised that they are ‘anti choice for others’ when itI comes to this, as I am sure you are against others having the choice to murder at will, regardless of whether you wish to murder anyone.

It’s like saying that it’s shocking that a hypothetical group of people who believe theft is the worst possible crime you can commit, believe in capital punishment for thieves. Sure, it sounds bizarre to everyone else, but it shouldn’t be surprising at all that they feel that way, given that they believe.

Those numbers are horseshit though, lol. There is no significant difference between the sexes on this topic:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Majorities of both men (61%) and women (64%) express support for legal abortion.

Abortion isn’t a ‘battle of the sexes’ topic, and you should be wary of anyone perpetuating this myth. In my experience, those most likely to do so, are those who see men in general as ‘the enemy’, and use this narrative as a tool to confirm and spread their bias.

The average wealth could be $1,990,000 and they’d still be incorrect, lol (assuming the minimum value for “multimilion”, $2 million).

The 50 richest people in the US have a collective net worth of about $3 trillion. If you could wave a magic wand and turn that net worth (which is not an amount of cash money) directly into cash, something that obviously can’t actually be done, but I digress, and you distributed that $3 trillion evenly among the ~340 million people in the US, everyone would get about $8800, lmao. Not quite multimillionaire level.

It amuses me how confidently people will state complete bullshit, even when it’s so easily debunked.

did you just have this list of people you don’t respect ready to go, imaginary person I made up for this fake conversation meme?

Also, ‘the job you do creates less value than the wage you’re demanding for it’ and ‘I don’t respect you’ are not the same sentence. They’re not even the same category of statement. The former is an assertion of fact (which can be true/false, depending on the job/wage), the latter a subjective value judgment.

those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad.

This demographic is much, much smaller than you probably assume it is–I mean ‘statistically insignificant’ small.

It’s both.

Holy shit lol, I know it’s both! I never said it’s not both. I’m just pointing out the common misconception, that people tend to assume the wrong one of the two is statistically a bigger factor. And not just bigger, but much bigger.

“woman sexually assaults minor boy, gets herself pregnant from the assault, no punishment for her and boy owes woman child support for being her victim.”

In case anyone thinks this person is being hyperbolic here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

you said that sentencing isn’t harsher for women of color

Literally never said that. I just pointed out that being the ‘wrong’ sex hurts you more than being the ‘wrong’ race.

White men get sentenced much more harshly than black women for the same crime, for example. That’s a fact.