Rightwing critics blame Mamdani as New York snow fails to melt
Rightwing critics blame Mamdani as New York snow fails to melt
Rightwing critics blame Mamdani as New York snow fails to melt
An AI startup founder says he's planning a 'March for Billionaires' in protest of California's wealth tax
Conservatives clash at Turning Point USA conference over MAGA movement's direction
Van Hollen on Caribbean boat strike: ‘Very possible there was a war crime committed’
Netanyahu Asks Israel’s President to Pardon Him in Corruption Cases
There’s No Doubt About It: The Great MAGA Crack-Up Has Begun
Ukraine Says It Won’t Give Up Land to Russia
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Long a Defender of States’ Rights, Embraces Trump’s Push to Expand Presidential Power
Lawmakers Call for Probe of How Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Got Piece of $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts
House Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick charged with stealing $5M in Covid aid funds
Texas AG loses appeal to seize evidence for Elon Musk’s ad boycott fight
Spy-catcher saw “stupid” tech errors others made. FBI says he then made his own.
White House acknowledges problems in RFK Jr.'s MAHA report
Still calm and unemotional here. How about you? Are you in a place now where you can admit you were wrong?
See, here's the thing. It's not just me that noticed. You repeatedly deflected and pivoted so naturally in this conversation, that I'm not even sure you realize you're doing it until someone calls it out.
That tells me you do this on a regular basis, even with people close to you IRL. They notice. They don't call you out to keep the peace, because they know how you'll react. But they notice, and that means they don't trust you.
Seeing someone pivot, deflect and double down when faced with evidence of being wrong only lowers their credibility in the eyes of others. It means they don't follow the evidence and change their mind when appropriate. It means that they stubbornly cling to falsehoods in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, they're probably frequently wrong about stuff and shouldn't be trusted.
On the other hand, seeing them say,
raises their credibility significantly in the eyes of others. It means that they do follow the evidence and change their mind when appropriate, and that means they're likely usually mostly right about stuff, and therefore can be trusted.
As for the donor of the cybertrucks, your right, it wasn't Elon Musk, even though I never said it was and you've repeatedly refused to address correcting me on a statement I didn't make.
However, it also wasn't the owner of UP FIT, which you've repeatedly claimed that it was without evidence. When it was pointed out that the article didn't support your claim, as you said it did, you pivoted and deflected, instead of simply saying, "Damn! You're right. I completely misread that."
So, allow me to help. According to The Guardian , it was Ben Horowitz.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that, had you owned up to correcting me for saying something I hadn't said at the start, I totally would have just taken your word for it about who the donor was. I would have had no reason to think that you were wrong about that. It was completely believable. Why would I question that?
It was only after you kept pivoting away from that first point that I started to question the rest of what you said. And that's how it works. When you catch someone refusing to admit they're wrong about one thing, you start to doubt everything they say.
Have a great week. I wish you the best.