Edit to replace with canonical link: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/

How about:

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Hotels/motels still exist.

I’m not going to get into the discussion about whether renting should or should not exist but I can get behind the idea that renting for profit shouldn’t be a thing.

I don’t know about you but when I was a teen in the times you mentioned we went out to those places as a group, not alone. If a stranger approached one of us and tried to get us alone it would have been weird.

Social media can certainly make it easier to isolate an individual while also given them a sense of safety. A teen today can be sitting in the safety of their bedroom all by themself and be groomed by someone through social media.

Like with most things technology has made this easier than before and in this case that’s not a good thing.

People should not own more than one living place and that place should be the place that they live in.

This isn’t realistic. Maybe not owning additional homes for the sole purpose of renting to make a profit would be a better statement to make.

She is listed as a writer for pretty much all her songs

I don’t know anything about anything in this Taylor Swift conversation but Elvis was listed as a writer on all of his songs but wrote none of them. It was a requirement of his management that if he performed it, he got a writing credit.

What point? I’m honestly trying to find out if it’s only considered swatting if an actual SWAT team is deployed or if that’s become the generic term.

There’s a term for this, called genericide. Like how Kleenex is used for all facial tissues or Qtips is used for all cotton swabs.

If all you want to do is find reasons to get offended and be combatant take your bullshit somewhere else.

I’m so sick of people like you on Lenny eroding actual conversation so you can mud sling and interpret everything in the worst possible light.

Sometimes a question is just a fucking question jackass!

Blocked for being the waste of space you are.

I thought shocked and surprised were synonyms.

Interesting read about this..

The native cultural influence is pretty strongly interwoven in the fabric of Minnesota. It’s very possible the thought process was just that the locals associated that image with their state, just like the brand name.

The Anishinaabe and Dakota have had major influence on the state and that’s been recognized more in recent history with the renaming of certain places back to their native name, like Bde Maka Ska.

Most of the naming in the metro(and the state name) comes from the Dakota peoples. The Anishinaabe were located more in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin so you’ll see the influence there. For example the town of Biwabik in the iron range which is the Anishinaabe word for iron.

Good to know, glad you take advantage! Amazon is one of several companies I avoid on ethical grounds but I fault nobody else for shopping there.

I was mostly being facetious, I try not to use Amazon. My wife does off and on and has used a free trial 3-4 times a year.

The trials are 30 days (in the US) and years ago, 4-5, I would just use a throwaway email and do a new trial every 30 days to keep Prime. Not sure if they guard against that at all now or not.

I always sign up for the free Prime trials just so I can get the satisfaction of cancelling.

Your comment doesn’t really answer my question. Do they actually send a SWAT team?

I don’t really care about how they are armed. Is it called swatting because a SWAT team is deployed, or is it because that happened once or sometimes but it’s not always the case?

Do they actually send a SWAT team? I just assumed that was the term but they actually just trigger a high priority multi officer response based on what they say.

You comment on a news article about Americans and credit cards and argue your opinion which has nothing to do with Americans or their credit cards.

In context your supporting statements for your opinion are factually wrong. You also have yet to explain your original comment.

Your reply and those under you are listing why credit cards are the better choice, however I wonder if they all know they are being played.

The slang term played usually means that you have been outwitted or used as a pawn.

How are they being played?

Those that use their credit card and pay it off in full are subsidized by the number of people that spend beyond their means.

How are they being subsidized?

I’ll be flabbergasted if you can answer either of those questions in any way that makes sense in the context of Americans and their credit cards.

I hope you learned something because I’m pretty sure your spurious statements have made me dumber.

Banks receive a marginally increased interchange fee (~0.1%)

interchange fees for cards are so similar? Or is that 0.1% the big deal?

Back this up because they are not similar. Credit cards charge higher interchange fees and the more people you have using your card, the more you’re making in fees. Seems like an incentive to try and get someone to use your credit card instead of a debit.

Banks incentivise the crap out of credit cards

Every for profit company tries to incentivize their product. I know there are grocery stores in the UK. When they run a sale, promotion, or discount like I’ve seen posted online for items close to expiration they are incentivizing the purchase of that product.

You made a claim that people who use cards responsibly and take advantage of rewards programs are being “played”. How? You also seem to blame-shift the choices of those who spend beyond their means to those who don’t. A person chooses to apply for a card, a person chooses to use that card, a person chooses to spend more than they can afford. That choice is on the individual making it, not some other person who doesn’t make bad choices.

Debit and credit cards have their benefits and drawbacks but either is a viable choice when used responsibly and a bad choice when used irresponsibly. The thing you’re upset with is poor banking regulation, not responsible card owners. The fact that a bank can charge multiple $10, $20, $30 dollar overdraft fees on a debit OR usurious interest rates is an example of a private entity not being kept in check and being allowed to exploit people.

Receiving a service for free means it is subsidized.

It’s not free. It costs an interchange fee, just like a debit card. That’s not paid by users of the card. At most it’s “subsidized” by the business, or maybe everyone if those interchange fees are built into the product price, in which case the card user is indirectly paying for it.

I’m sorry, you have mistaken me for an American

Almost like banking regulation isn’t universal, making your claims ambiguous rather than outright wrong. Especially without any supporting evidence to your claims.

You have yet to convince me that.

Ok, whether you’re convinced doesn’t change the fact your statements are wrong.

It is obvious that banks have the ability to make more off their users bad choices when using credit cards than they do debit cards.

Prove it. Many banks (in the US) charge exorbitant overdraft fees that make them billions and f dollars a year.

Just because you and I are capable of managing our funds well, isn’t the case accross all.

Explain how one persons inability to manage their finances is the responsibility of someone who manages theirs responsibly? Banks engage in plenty of dubious, and sometimes outright illegal, activities. Blaming them because an individual doesn’t have the common sense to spend more on a credit card than they have is patently ridiculous.

I worked for a UK bank for 4 years (2004-2008), however the opinion I am portraying here doesn’t need any inside knowledge, its just common sense.

Opinion. Your opinion isn’t in question. The statements you make to support it, without any evidence, are. You seem to think that when you have an opinion any claim you make around that can just be supported by how you feel.

You know what’s just common sense? Understanding that if you have X amount of money, spending X+1 on a credit card is a poor choice because you can’t pay it. That’s personal responsibility and trying to pass that responsibility on to people who are “being played” by not doing that is blame-shifting.

Those that use their credit card and pay it off in full are subsidized by the number of people that spend beyond their means.

That’s both factually wrong, other users already explained it to you, and patently ridiculous. How exactly is someone who uses a card and then pays the bill in full every month subsidized? I don’t think you understand the word subsidized.

So why don’t debit cards have the same set of features? Because banks want you to use the type of card that has the most return potential.

This is also wrong.

The Durbin Amendment capped interchange rates on debit cards and debit card rewards programs began disappearing because of it.

You make multiple factually incorrect statements. Whether it’s better to use a credit or debit card is a matter of opinion, your other statements are just wrong.

Deodorant is blue, deodorant + antiperspirant is white in the store. It’s also all aluminum free now which sucks. I miss the aluminum deodorant gel.

I’ll take “moronic takes” for $500, Alex