3 ms·

If you want to say something like this, at least back it up with something. Anyone can say "You two are both wrong" and sound smart. Also which part of "people

If you want to say something like this, at least back it up with something. Anyone can say "You two are both wrong" and sound smart. Also which part of "people don't understand" is not condescending? Funny enough, I watched this movie called Barton Fink last night, and it's a perfect depiction of this nonsense.

35bge57dtjku 10y ago
> Also which part of "people don't understand" is not condescending? How is asserting a fact like that in any way condescending?
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  Because it's not a fact
  - 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
    It is a fact. Some people don't understand. And even if it were false, that doesn't make it condescending. People are wrong about things all the time without it being condescending.
    - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
      Go back and re-read the original comment I replied to. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing by taking the words out of context.
      - 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
        > You're just arguing for the sake of arguing by taking the words out of context. No... I specifically asked because I wanted to know why you thought it was condescending. That's a far cry from arguing for the sake of arguing. And it didn't come off at condescending to me.
JohnStrange 10y ago
Maybe you think the web can only be totally decentralized or totally centralized, but I don't think so and that's why I made the comment. Someone can be fine with centralized banks and still favor decentralized social networks and running your own p2p servers, for instance. If you disagree, fine, but don't pretend that my post was condescending. Take it easy.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I don't know where you got the idea that I think the world can be totally centralized or decentralized, honestly. The bank analogy was about how there are upsides and downsides to everything, and the society is not as stupid as to have no clue what's going on. For things like this the world follows the collective intelligence. Even the people who have no idea how a bank works still use bank with no problem because of the collective knowledge. We know that a bank is safe enough and provides more upsides than downsides. But this is not always the case. In countries where people have low confidence in their government, even the "ignorant people" who have no idea how Bitcoin works learn about the benefits and move away to it. This is not a result of some intellects trying to convince the "uninformed" how the world should work. It's a result of the collective intelligence recognizing how the pendulum has swung and now there's more downsides than upsides.

35bge57dtjku 10y ago

> Also which part of "people don't understand" is not condescending? How is asserting a fact like that in any way condescending?

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Because it's not a fact
- 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
  It is a fact. Some people don't understand. And even if it were false, that doesn't make it condescending. People are wrong about things all the time without it being condescending.
  - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
    Go back and re-read the original comment I replied to. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing by taking the words out of context.
    - 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
      > You're just arguing for the sake of arguing by taking the words out of context. No... I specifically asked because I wanted to know why you thought it was condescending. That's a far cry from arguing for the sake of arguing. And it didn't come off at condescending to me.

JohnStrange 10y ago

Maybe you think the web can only be totally decentralized or totally centralized, but I don't think so and that's why I made the comment. Someone can be fine with centralized banks and still favor decentralized social networks and running your own p2p servers, for instance. If you disagree, fine, but don't pretend that my post was condescending. Take it easy.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I don't know where you got the idea that I think the world can be totally centralized or decentralized, honestly. The bank analogy was about how there are upsides and downsides to everything, and the society is not as stupid as to have no clue what's going on. For things like this the world follows the collective intelligence. Even the people who have no idea how a bank works still use bank with no problem because of the collective knowledge. We know that a bank is safe enough and provides more upsides than downsides. But this is not always the case. In countries where people have low confidence in their government, even the "ignorant people" who have no idea how Bitcoin works learn about the benefits and move away to it. This is not a result of some intellects trying to convince the "uninformed" how the world should work. It's a result of the collective intelligence recognizing how the pendulum has swung and now there's more downsides than upsides.