I always find it interesting how, in Reddit any trivial fight or even just different opinions, the advice it's always to end the relationship.
Or, formally, my claim is A implies B. The only logical contrapositive is non B implies non A. (not losing money means not following advices on r/wallstreetbets)
But you say: non A implies non B, which is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Betting against these companies is obvious and expected, so the cost of shorting might be high enough that even if you’re correct (stock goes down, the opposition of what WSB said), paying the cost of the short (the fee to borrow the stock from someone else) is high enough that you still lose money.
Also:
1. shorting stocks can be quite dangerous. Your downside is, well, not infinite but it can easily wipe you out.
2. You might be correct that the stock goes down, but over what time frame? Again, you have to pay money to hold a short. Or you’re using a different financial instrument that has a specific timeline. If the market does move in your direction but too late, you still lose.
That's as big a bias as AI affirmation bias; indeed AI and certain corners of Reddit are probably the only two venues likely to provide this sort of affirmative response https://alexyeozhenkai.substack.com/p/i-cheated-on-my-wife-b...
To be fair, if your interpersonal skills and relationship dynamic are such that you find yourself seriously asking the Internet (Reddit of all places) for relationship advice... yeah, just end it is probably the null hypothesis.
It's like what GiveDirectly says: all charitable interventions should be benchmarked against simply giving the beneficiaries a wad of cash.
Code bot equivalent being all "you are absolutely right! Here is the unequivocal fix for now and all time!"