3 ms·

Since when has it been the case that the far-right are never drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, or money launderers? I thoroughly enjoyed this piece precisely

Since when has it been the case that the far-right are never drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, or money launderers? I thoroughly enjoyed this piece precisely because she did describe the dystopian soup of all of the above that decentralisation and distribution has given us. If anything you should have walked away from this article with the realisation that, thanks to it all, we can no longer truly organize ourselves into such narrow little boxes of prejudice. I'm guessing you didn't make it to the end of the article? I'll save you a tap on the back-button, and quote the part that I think you did yourself a disservice by missing: "But it’s also the case that no amount of mathematics can delete human prejudice, and no ledger can logic away human cruelty. If the crypto community hasn’t realized that yet, it soon will." This is probably the wisest thing I've ever heard anyone say, ever, who has had even the slightest contact with crypto-culture.

zamalek 8y ago
I'm not a fan of the far-right, but this begging the question/false equivalency doesn't sit well with me: > Since when has it been the case that the far-right are never drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, or money launderers? Since when has it been the case that the far-right are always drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, or money launderers? The political inclinations of these people are a factor, but not the sole reason. 1 + X = 2, only if X = 1. There are many more reasons why such as trip would attract scumbags and political idealogies aren't the whole story. Left/right is a different political spectrum to libertarianism, totalitarianism, communism, liberalism etc. Fascism is closer to totalitarianism (which is the polar opposite of libertarianism), but is far-right.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  shshhdhs's post complaining about the author injecting their political views into this piece indicated that they (shshhdhs) felt that the author was singling out the far-right leaning people she met on the cruise, for targeting, and that her cynicism of the crypto- scene is derived, somehow, from the fact that she (the author) held political views incompatible with the people she met that she associated as being far-right. shshhdhs's response to this was to indicate that the crypto- scene is also the realm of drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, etc. But these things are not incompatible. Far-right scammers, drug dealers, scammers, etc. exist. So do far-left versions of the same. So it really isn't relevant to their (shshhdhs) criticism, and thats the point I wish to make. It seems to me that shshhdhs is only complaining about the authors political views with regards to this cruise, because they are incompatible with shshhdhs's views of the same, and that shshhdhs is making the statement that crypto- is more the domain of drug-dealers, etc. therefore "it can't be all far-right people in the scene". I merely wish to point out that if you're left-, or if you're right- wing, you can still be a bad person for other reasons: drugs, ransom, scams, etc. Crypto- is an equaliser, and that is really the big point. Ones political ideology is irrelevant to the technology - its just as useful for people who wish do good, however they define 'good' as it is for those who do things others think are 'bad', for whatever that definition may be. The authors own conclusion - the very last sentence of the article - demonstrates that she gets it: it doesn't matter what your political views, crypto- is going to let you continue to espouse them, whether they are good or bad. Maybe thats offensive to some, but it doesn't seem to me that it bothers the author that much. What seems to bother her, is the rampant sexism that she observed, and I concur with her statement that it seems technology is never going to solve this. Only humans will.

zamalek 8y ago

I'm not a fan of the far-right, but this begging the question/false equivalency doesn't sit well with me: > Since when has it been the case that the far-right are never drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, or money launderers? Since when has it been the case that the far-right are always drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, or money launderers? The political inclinations of these people are a factor, but not the sole reason. 1 + X = 2, only if X = 1. There are many more reasons why such as trip would attract scumbags and political idealogies aren't the whole story. Left/right is a different political spectrum to libertarianism, totalitarianism, communism, liberalism etc. Fascism is closer to totalitarianism (which is the polar opposite of libertarianism), but is far-right.

fit2rule 8y ago
shshhdhs's post complaining about the author injecting their political views into this piece indicated that they (shshhdhs) felt that the author was singling out the far-right leaning people she met on the cruise, for targeting, and that her cynicism of the crypto- scene is derived, somehow, from the fact that she (the author) held political views incompatible with the people she met that she associated as being far-right. shshhdhs's response to this was to indicate that the crypto- scene is also the realm of drug dealers, ransomers, scammers, etc. But these things are not incompatible. Far-right scammers, drug dealers, scammers, etc. exist. So do far-left versions of the same. So it really isn't relevant to their (shshhdhs) criticism, and thats the point I wish to make. It seems to me that shshhdhs is only complaining about the authors political views with regards to this cruise, because they are incompatible with shshhdhs's views of the same, and that shshhdhs is making the statement that crypto- is more the domain of drug-dealers, etc. therefore "it can't be all far-right people in the scene". I merely wish to point out that if you're left-, or if you're right- wing, you can still be a bad person for other reasons: drugs, ransom, scams, etc. Crypto- is an equaliser, and that is really the big point. Ones political ideology is irrelevant to the technology - its just as useful for people who wish do good, however they define 'good' as it is for those who do things others think are 'bad', for whatever that definition may be. The authors own conclusion - the very last sentence of the article - demonstrates that she gets it: it doesn't matter what your political views, crypto- is going to let you continue to espouse them, whether they are good or bad. Maybe thats offensive to some, but it doesn't seem to me that it bothers the author that much. What seems to bother her, is the rampant sexism that she observed, and I concur with her statement that it seems technology is never going to solve this. Only humans will.