Any GME holders?

Suggesting that calling the original organiser a douchebag is a weird stance to take, isn't the same as trying to uphold an echo chamber though? That's less of giving an opinion and more of a random jab out of nowhere? It just seems to have no basis.

Yeah, some people might get stung if they don't profit from their participation, but afaik they weren't misleading about it, so the post had a weird smell to it, especially given market abusers don't really warrant defending? As long as the participants are willing, and understand there are risks, then as far as I can see there is no real objection to be made. Those involved don't NEED to permanently change the entire investing paradigm, doing it just once doesn't make it remotely bad just because there isn't follow-through. Even if it just amounts to a symbolic or cathartic exercise, none of that casts shadow upon the participants or organiser, so its only natural that someone might quirk an eyebrow at someone against it to the point they were prickly from the outset.

And yeah, Escruidin was patronising in their explanation, and such a shit-eating tone would naturally get backlash from most forumites (sorry Escru, but seriously :P), yet they're a different person to DoctorOfJournalism, who had even previously noted that it could be down to media spin that Dingbat held the view they did, perhaps mistaking exactly which side is the 'underdog' and which is the 'bully'. DOJ might have used mild hyperbole in their phrasing, but calling this an echo chamber and likening it to a certain recent storming of buildings is waaaay less subtle and missed the mark by a market mile, IMO. :P Like I might have got where you were coming from had it been directed at Escruidin but this just seemed like a bit of a wild potshot?

Its pretty confusing all in all, because I normally feel Dingbat and yourself tend to be pretty on-point in discussions (or bickering) that come up, so now I'm just left wondering if there's some actual little info-nugget or actual counterpoint that hasn't been brought up? Like after the initial scuffle, did Dingbat just decide it isn't worth trying to discuss in detail on some actual salient secret "this seems like a good clapback but actually its damaging stuff other than the market manipulators"? When certain tones are involved that's certainly appreciable. Or maybe Dingbat just originally came off stronger than they meant to?
(feel free to step in here any time Dingbat, now it just feels like I'm talking like you're not here, heh)

Because otherwise yeah, folks are gonna argue, but part of said arguments can be "Where is this even coming from?" or "Why the shots fired?" without it meaning no dissent is tolerated. :P

Yes - it will collapse eventually - but the chances are that it could still go a lot higher before that happens. In your initial summary, it was evident you did not really know what was going on. A short squeeze has nothing to do with the fundamentals (apart from why the hedge funds shorted it initially)

Yes, after the shorts are covered and cut, prices will go back to where they should be.

But you don’t cover 51M shorts in a day. Nor two. LOWEST REAL expectations is the price settling around 500$ until a good amount of shorts are covered (around 60-80%), and that only happens if there a bunch of paperhands.

And fundamentally, there is reason for the price of GME be as high as it is. That’s what you seem not to understand. This is an unique situation.

This differs in a traditional pump and dump by a LOT. This actually has a background “stabilizer” where you are guaranteed to have a buyer. And that buyer HAS to keep buying for some days. If it was a pump and dump, the stocks would just flood the market and there would be no buyers for it, driving prices down. Just like what happened with DOGEcoin yesterday and that is going to happen to XRP in a couple of days (currently being pumped).

One has guaranteed buyers for the shares. The other doesn’t.