I hated Brand before any accusations, but why exactly should someone take a side when they have no idea what happened?
It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, but men aren't the only ones capable of lying.
What happens when a socialist candidate eventually gets popular, and capital finds one person to accuse them? Should we all ditch them, because having a vagina prevents someone from making things up?
🐧 holds up spork
People will be training AI on their ex's face to show how unhinged they are. Anyone could make pictures for divorce or custody battles that depict the other party like this.
And if they dismiss it as AI that's a whole other problem. Actual pictures will mean nothing.
the projects they invest into aren't resulting into wealth being generated by the working class.
Irrelevant, because I never claimed it did. I only said that money ends up competing for labor and other resources.
If they could just raise prices, they would have done it before. So why didn't they?
Because what actually changed was an increase to the money supply.
Atheists aren't claiming to have positive proof of the nonexistence of God.
The term means that someone has not seen convincing evidence for God's existence.
Likewise, I wouldn't say I'm agnostic about Russel's Teapot or any mythical idea because that terms tends to imply that you find the existence and nonexistence of the thing to be comparably likely.