• ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    However you justify it, it is still betraying your class. Still siding with billionaires.

    You could have just written “nuh uh!” and saved some time, since that’s the essence of what you’re saying here.

    Stop projecting, you’re the one replacing facts with your pet narrative.

    Everything I said was factual, and you know it.

    • hime0321@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You could have just said “I’m an idiot” it would have saved time. Obviously that’s how reduction works. No, I don’t know it. You don’t even give sources, just yeah you know it bro. Yeah, just trust me bro. I don’t trust you, so I’m not going to trust “and you know it” I’m tired of listening to some kid spout regurgitated conservative shit.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Your logic dictates that if I buy a rookie baseball card for $5, the player has a great season and now my card is worth $100, that $95 must have been taken from one or more other people, because you believe that increases in net worth cannot occur without theft.

        Pointing out that this makes no sense doesn’t require trust, just functioning logical thought processes.

        • hime0321@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t know how you got this from what I said but that’s completely wrong. Like why are you comparing something that appreciated in value to billionaires? That’s how valuing things works along with supply and demand. The demand for a high preforming player will have their cards go up in value because the supply of the cards is limited. If you believe that that is how billionaires get their net worth then you are just plain wrong. It does require trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t trust the shit you spew. Facts without sources are untrustworthy and more akin to opinions than facts. Don’t just make up some “logic” and pretend that that is what I was saying.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Like why are you comparing something that appreciated in value to billionaires?

            Because that’s how billionaires become billionaires. They buy stuff (or pieces of it, e.g. shares of stock) and continue to own it while it appreciates in value.

            This is why it’s possible for a billionaire’s net worth to swing up and down so wildly: net worth is a valuation, a price tag. It’s NOT an amount of cash money.

            Facts without sources are untrustworthy and more akin to opinions than facts.

            First off, stop using “opinion” wrong. An assertion can either be true or false. Opinions are subjective, in another category entirely. Facts and opinions are not opposites. This is grade school stuff.

            Secondly, give me an example of an assertion I made that you don’t “trust”. Bet I can back it up with very little Google time.

            • hime0321@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I understand what and how net worth is. When did I ever say it was an amount of cash? I said AKIN to an opinion, words mean things. No sources is akin to an opinion. So please keep telling me how words work, super helpful. I don’t care for whatever you google, I’d just have to verify the source and a quick google likely won’t give you great sources. An example okay how about “everything I said was factual, and you know it”