Lol no. The flat earth conspiracy was almost certainly invented to make conspiracies easier to dismiss. Read Fry's post using flat earther to mock me and it proves my point.You serious, Clark?
Lol no. The flat earth conspiracy was almost certainly invented to make conspiracies easier to dismiss. Read Fry's post using flat earther to mock me and it proves my point.You serious, Clark?
Must suck to have to straw man. I like twitter because it always gives more context. You think more context sucks evidently. To each their own.What's truly ironic is a guy who believes Elon Musk was put on earth to save the US and who only trusts and believes news coming from a twitter link...no exceptions...calling me uninformed. Reading your stuff is like reading the Onion only better because your absurdity is actually real and you're not joking.
Where's the laughing emoji in this thing?
Whew. Thanks for clarifying! Cheers.Lol no. The flat earth conspiracy was almost certainly invented to make conspiracies easier to dismiss. Read Fry's post using flat earther to mock me and it proves my point.
Must suck to have to straw man.
I like twitter because it always gives more context. You think more context sucks evidently. To each their own.
And holy sit it's 2024. How does anyone still believe the earth is round?
When you look out into the ocean on a calm day it sure looks like you can see the curve.Even when using binoculars outside, Mother certainly appears a bit flat
Flying from DM to Seattle or Philadelphia in a window seat the Earth certainly appears
to be flat
Just my personal opinion
A straw man was exactly what you were doing. I just googled it to be 100% sure and the definition looks like it could have been written to explain exactly what you were doing in your post.1) You don't understand what a straw man argument is.
2) To the contrary. I don't limit myself to one source of news distribution. You're the one limiting the context of what you consume, not me. I don't know if it's laziness or messianic worship of Elon Musk; I suspect in your case it's a combination of both.
I thought he was only in trailer park girls.
Too soon???
Social media curates one's feed based on an algorithm. If you either positively or negatively engage in a topic, you'll get what you are already interested in, and already believe. A lot of it isn't factual at all, but instead are fiery opinions intended to get folks riled up over the latest controversy.A straw man was exactly what you were doing. I just googled it to be 100% sure and the definition looks like it could have been written to explain exactly what you were doing in your post.
Your number 2 further clarifies your ignorance on Twitter. Scrolling my feed on Twitter is similar to getting my information from every news source at the same time. Because they all post their shit on Twitter.
Once again, it's fine that you have no clue what you're talking about here. Its not like i think you're dumb for not using twitter. Hell i don't use facebook. . It's just weird that you're dying on that hill. I have some opinions on Facebook based on things Zuckerberg has said and the way my mom scrolls Facebook and can sight every single Trump hating talking point, but hasn't even heard a single counter point to any of it. But there's no way in hell I'd dig my feet in the ground in a debate on Facebook. I'd have to be an idiot to do that because I have no first hand experience with it. No offense.
I agree with all of this to an extent. But one issue is people tend to engage more in the topics that trigger them. But also, people like to see things that confirm what they believe. I follow people on both sides too. Maybe others don't do that? Hell Jon Miller gives me enough far left content/ opinions all by himself. Also, Twitter doesn't edit articles or videos that other people/media outlets post. So it's not like the news I consume through twitter from other sources is somehow tainted. It's just a very efficient way to take it all in. All that said, I can't speak of someone's twitter feed who only follows one side and blocks everyone on the other. For all I know, in those instances people can get overload from only one side.Social media curates one's feed based on an algorithm. If you either positively or negatively engage in a topic, you'll get what you are already interested in, and already believe. A lot of it isn't factual at all, but instead are fiery opinions intended to get folks riled up over the latest controversy.
Also, Musk in particular elevates what he wants people to see, and buries what he doesn't want people to see. He talks about free speech, but he bans people who directly criticize him.
In short, other than avoiding social media altogether (not a bad idea and I'm considering it), it's good to remember that one is already in a bubble when they consume certain stories. One just gets more of those stories, confirming their beliefs/bias.
I have a friend who quit all social media and noticed a definite improvement in his mood/happiness. It really has me thinking about doing the same. Have any of you contemplated this?
Thank you. I'd be interested to see if folks on this board disagree with his fundamental premise.How the US is destroying young people's future
In a scorching talk, marketing professor and podcaster Scott Galloway dissects the data showing that, by many measures, young people in the US are worse off financially than ever before. He unpacks the root causes and effects of this "great intergenerational theft," asking why we let it continue...www.ted.com
Thank you. I'd be interested to see if folks on this board disagree with his fundamental premise.
The crazy thing about Estate Tax is that a large percentage of heirs now spend all their inheritances in the first couple of years. If they were just going to keep it all saved, then let it be taxed as Estates, but now it's getting taxed already by Feds as income tax if it's moved out of IRAs and then by states as sales tax for all the stuff that it's spent on.I'll put this here instead of starting a new thread: Estate Tax, what thinks you? Should the government tax the shit out of you if you die and try to leave money to your children?
I used to think no, but have been convinced yes. I wonder what others think.
No. Your family is an extension of you. The act of your heart stopping should not transfer property (money is property) you earned and paid taxes on already to the hands of the government. I understand the premise that inheritors didn't do anything to acquire the gain and that you feel they should be taxed as income (that's what a gain is). I also think you're confusing the very, very tiny pecentage of inheritors to be 4th generation trust fund babies out on a yacht who've never worked before with the very, very large percentage who are normal folks like we are. If you draw that line, where do you draw it? Unfortunately those trust fund babies are a necessary evil unless we want to live under communistic rule. I do not. It has never worked and it will never work.I'll put this here instead of starting a new thread: Estate Tax, what thinks you? Should the government tax the shit out of you if you die and try to leave money to your children?
I used to think no, but have been convinced yes. I wonder what others think.
Hard to disagree with much of anything in that video.Thank you. I'd be interested to see if folks on this board disagree with his fundamental premise.