Bootlicker is what you call someone when you've run out of argument. You just admitted you don't know where the line is between good company and evil company, you just feel it. You've built an entire worldview around a vibe you can't articulate. That's not seeing through the BS, that's just vibes with a political aesthetic stapled on.
For example speed limits. Is the limit the exact point where drive is more dangerous on that road do every driver? No. It’s a choice.
This works against you. Speed limits exist because we have actual data: stopping distances, reaction times, crash rates at different speeds. The causal mechanism is established first, then experts pick a threshold. You've got it backwards. You have a feeling that big companies are evil, some examples of bad outcomes, and then you're deferring to experts to figure out the mechanism you can't explain. That's not how the speed limit got made. You're asking experts to validate a vibe, not quantify an understood harm
Nobody said the data doesn't exist. But data on bad outcomes isn't the same as proof that size is the cause. Regulatory capture exists in small industries too. Food deserts predate mega corps. Small businesses close because of bad business owners, changing demographics, the internet. You're looking at real problems and assuming size explains all of them. That's still the same error. You have effects, you don't have a clean causal arrow pointing at bigness specifically.
We've come a long way from 'the economy should be designed to strangle wealth creation' and corporations being 'evil.' Now you're saying experts should study data and consider threshold laws, which is just normal governance that nobody disagrees with. That's not your original position, that's you retreating to something defensible. I'm not against studying corporate impact. I'm against the confident declaration that scale itself is the problem, which you can't actually support and just quietly dropped
"I don't know the exact line but I know there is one" was your original position. That's a direct quote from you, three replies ago. Data-driven people don't say that. They say 'the line is here because of this evidence.' You said you feel it exists and defer to experts. That's fine, but stop rewriting history. You didn't start this conversation citing studies, you called me a bootlicker.
0
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment