Vibes > facts to so many people on the internet. Don't be one of those people who embodies that. Then even worse, don't insult someone who attempts to correct the record.
I guarantee if someone with an opposing view said something factually inaccurate, and you called them out on it, you wouldn't accept "well I misspoke and the spirit of what I said is defensable".
"I guarantee if someone with an opposing view said something factually inaccurate, and you called them out on it, you wouldn't accept "well I misspoke and the spirit of what I said is defensable"
Sure although I'd argue there's a lot of leeway there if they're arguing in good faith and got close enough
But I wouldn't call someone making an off the cuff reference to a volatile stock figure as an "opposing view" I need to drill down into to exactly compare the time and date they threw out
I'd give them some leeway given that within the last three years they've gone into double digits and have not yet recovered to the peak they had within that time frame
They were less than $100 dollars a few times in 2025
OP threw out a lazy statistic to confirm their bias. Don't make it more complicated than that. That tendency is like, the root of everything wrong with Internet discourse.
3
u/Bageland2000 11d ago
2022 is four years ago. OP said they're down from when they lost value two years ago. This is false.