The opportunity of a lifetime, my friends and I’m gonna share it exclusively with you! Important players in the cryptomarket are right now investing in a new coin guaranteed to go to the moon in just three months' time. There’s no time to waste - mortgage the house, take your grandma’s savings, sell your kids into slavery and buy as much as you can! Don’t miss out on ShitCoin and you will thank me come next spring!
This is financial advice and I urge you to listen to me and invest everything in ShitCoin!
As you know I’m not a crypto expert, which is why I try to read what others have to say on the state of the market and one thing I find surprising is the ‘disclaimer’ on every post - this is not personalor financial advice, this page and this author are not liable for any loss. And I wonder why the need for a disclaimer?! I do understand an author’s need to protect against a potential lawsuit, but the question is who in their right mind would even consider such claim as valid? So you lost all your money because some guy on the Internet said you should buy ShitCoin? Not a scammer with a dodgy ICO (those should be punished), but some ordinary dude who spends time drawing charts and studying marketcaps. And this dude believes the markets are going to explode and writes a very encouraging post. How is he to blame if the bears get even stronger and all the coins are drowning in a sea of red? He never put a gun to your head forcing you to invest everything.
The idea that you could potentially sue someone for the financial advice they gave stems from the childish notion that there is always someone to blame for your mistakes. Like a child throwing rocks at a house, breaking all the windows - ‘because Timmy told me to’. I wouldn’t tolerate such an answer from my son, but there are unfortunately many who have no problem blaming no matter who for their own screw-ups, thus confessing to their own ignorance and complete lack of judgement.
No wonder the powers-that-be tend to treat masses like a bunch of ignorant children. And using this presumed ignorance to decide what ideas we can safely be exposed to - mainly the official narrative. In my country there have been numerous calls for people who expose ‘dangerous’ ideas not to be allowed on TV, for instance. People that question vaccines safety or praise alternative cancer treatments should not be allowed to speak publicly, because the people might believe them. Never at any time is there a presumption that people exposed to ‘outlandish’ ideas might actually use their own brains to judge the merits of such claims. The masses are too childish to ever use their own judgement, we are told, therefore the need to ‘protect’ them for dangerous ideas. This is why we have people who want to censor our newsfeed and weed out the ‘fake news’, the stuff we cannot hear, lest we might believe it.
There are some who complain of the nanny-state and the dangers of being treated like children, but I’m afraid it’s a dwindling minority. We’d much rather be treated like children if this means we don’t have to take responsibility for our mistake and there’s always someone we can sue when we fuck-up!
Some months ago there were plenty of those who were optimistic Steem would get to $15 by the year’s end… or even $100? I’m sure many of you can no longer bear to look at the markets these days so what do we do? Who can we sue for our frustrated expectations?