Dogecoin is also not his. It came into existence in 2013. Elon's first tweet about it was in 2020.
If anything, you could reasonably argue that both that department name and his interest in that particular cryptocurrency are based on his affinity for the same original meme. But neither the meme nor the currency belong to him.
Is it confirmation bias when I know Trump and his team are gigantic liars so I
believe every negative thing you hear about him/them without the slightest bit of scrutiny/skepticism?
Yes.
named after the cryptoscam
"doge" became a meme in 2010, long before cryptocurrency was a thing the mainstream were even aware of, let alone the one named after it.
Cool unsourced/debunked fabrication from a literal tabloid, took me all of two minutes to find this, after looking for an actual source, when the OP-linked article didn't have one:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-reported-transgender-military-plan-called-out-charity-1991052
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. For shame.
I mean… No? I dont see where it would imply that its men fault. The word mean that men rule.
But they don't. Which is my point--people like you assert this is the case, so that when stuff is shitty, you can say things like 'well, the men are in charge, so if it's bad, it's men's fault', and in turn imply that women have zero agency in society and exist as nothing more than victims. You seem not to realize how deeply misogynistic it is to infantilize women this way, not to mention misandrist as well.
99.9% of men have no 'ruling' power whatsoever--they're in the weeds right alongside the 99.9% of women who also don't. To categorize either sex as 'the ruler' in American or any Western society is absolutely ridiculous.
But you can t deny that men did vote in favour of the rapist in the last US election
The majority of US voters are women. If all of the women voted for the same candidate, that candidate would be guaranteed to win, every time.
But all of the women didn't do that, did they? Well, guess what? Neither did all of the men.
Well over thirty million women voted for Trump. Stop stereotyping the sexes and acting like they're hiveminds, it's plainly sexist bullshit.
Face it: the blame for any societal ill does not belong to one sex.
It's not "patriarchy", it's the collective of the social norms and pressures put in place by, perpetrated by, and maintained by, the majority of both sexes. The word implies it's males' fault society is the way it is, which is demonstrably bullshit.
A large amount of racists and bigots are into norse stuff? Maybe. Almost all people in the norse stuff are racists and bigots? High doubt
In my experience, people are, on average, extremely susceptible to this very basic logical fallacy, and truly believe the two sentiments above are equivalent. In other words, believing that "most X are Y" implies "most Y are X".
It's fucking everywhere, pervasive all over the political spectrum too, it's universal. Radical feminists use the fact that most physical assailants are male to malign half of the human population. Racists use statistics about what percentage of violent crime is committed by a race, to draw conclusions about what percentage of that race commits violent crime. Hell, Reefer Madness, a propaganda piece with a well-deserved reputation of being completely full of shit, rests its premise on the exact same fallacy: "practically everyone dying from hard drug use is/was also a weed smoker, so we've concluded weed use leads to hard drug use".
I see it over, and over, and over again, online and in real life. It makes you want to grab someone by the shoulders and shake them while yelling "all oranges are fruits, does that mean all fruits are oranges?!", lol.
That's enough venting for tonight, though, haha.
It was a joke, and still is. It's just that there were enough extremist imbeciles out there who didn't realize it was a joke, and took it seriously.
That doesn't change anything about its origin as a joke.
Can we reclaim pepe?
We never lost it, imo. The vast majority of Pepe use is by people communicating nothing resembling a message of hate in any way.
Yeah, I'm very much in the camp of "fuck you, you don't get to have it" when it comes to extremist groups trying to co-opt other symbols.
It's extremely doable--the LGBT population has largely succeeded at doing exactly that with "queer", for example--these days, basically nobody utters that word as a pejorative. Fuck you, it's ours now. See what I mean?
There are way more of us than them, we could literally do this for everything these dipshits try to 'claim'.
I am, because my jokes are actually good, since I know how to actually construct a good joke, lol.
Or you can understand that I obviously was talking about legality the whole time and not obsess over an irrelevant semantic detail in a desperate attempt to evade the actual substance of what I said.
That's my point. There's no legal barrier, but it's not so easy to put all that in place. Most people are straight up incapable of it.
Those people should stop complaining that they don't get 100% of the value they obviously are not 100% responsible for creating, when they labor within a framework built and maintained by others, with others' resources, said framework being the primary reason that their labor is valuable to begin with.
You can get paid for digging a hole where the one who's paying wants you to, but no one's gonna pay you for digging random holes in your own backyard no one but you wants there.
Struck a nerve, huh?
It's like writing a joke based on the premise that exercise makes you gain weight. It doesn't, so any joke based on that is going to fall flat, except for people who think it does, lol.
The whole premise of the analogy is that the typed characters are random, which is why the animal in it is one that doesn't understand written English. The point being that over an infinite amount of time, even totally random typing will, by definition, eventually produce any specified sequence.
OOP doesn't get it, nor does anyone who finds this clever.
Okay, so then why am I not simply creating that widget myself and selling it for $1000 on my own, if it's that simple? Likely because of both of the following, to name a few:
- I don't have access to the raw materials and tools needed to create it, they were provided by my employer
- I haven't spent the money on the marketing that would make customers willing to pay me $1000 for that widget (see: Apple infamously, and largely successfully, charging significantly more for products than comparable equivalent products of other brands)
The bottom line is, there is much more than "your work" that goes into that widget ultimately being successfully sold for $1000, and that's why you can't accomplish the same on your own (or else you would, right?), and it's why you do not have a rightful claim to that $920.
Now, if you're able to create and sell that widget for any more than the same $80 of time/resources, then you should go into business for yourself, and can reasonably say that the business offering you only $80 was ripping you off.
But in the real world, that's rarely the case for very long. Those situations are extremely rare, and when they're discovered by individuals, they're capitalized on (pardoned the pun) pretty much instantly--all it takes is one person to 'close the gap', generally speaking.
It's very amusing for you to pretend I'm struggling while failing to grasp my very simple analogy.
Yeah, all of those things are why you don't get, nor are entitled to, 100% of the value created when you work for a business you didn't create. Your labor wouldn't create the value it does without the infrastructure you're working within. Infrastructure that none of your resources went into creating or maintaining.
And in addition, as a regular worker you're also not on the hook if the business is not profiting. Amazon existed for over a decade without turning a profit, but its employees still got paid that whole time.
That's the trade-off. Work for yourself, or understand that is a combination of your labor and your employer's infrastructure that makes your labor as valuable as it is, and that therefore neither side is entitled to 100% of that value.
By your logic, if you gave me four quarters for my dollar bill, you'd then complain that I made out with the "full value" of your quarters, and treat it like I stole your coins, instead of the mutually-agreed-upon trade that actually occurred.
Even if you gave me five quarters and I gave you one dollar bill, an uneven trade in my favor, I didn't end up with the "full value" ($1.25) of your money. I ended up plus only 25 cents.
Learn what "full" means.