3 ms·
Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like
by ufmace 6y ago
Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.
- asddubs 6y agoIt's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy
- ufmace 6y agoIt's absurd in the sense that, if you accept that definition, then anything at all - taking any action or even taking no action at all - could be called violent, which makes the word meaningless. It points to an Orwellian level of thought control. If anything at all can be called violent by any level of tortured logic, then it's very good to be the person who decrees what actions will be considered to be violent and what will not.
- eecc 6y agoWell, no. This reaction is what people refer to when they say "loss of privilege" causes reactionary behavior. If you think of it, even when you're not at the top of the food chain in your social order, being part of a dominant group makes your actions still causal to some sort of undesired or painful (and therefore violent) consequence to a member of the out-group. Nobody gets to decide what's good or bad, you just need to follow the chain of opportunity cost, determine who foots the bill and who reaps the interest. It's indeed pretty hard to swallow...
- asddubs 6y agoI don't know, I think it's less absurd than your usage of the words "orwellian thought control" in the context of a different opinion on the definition of a word. If I'm standing right next to the fuse box, and I see someone in the process of being electrocuted, isn't it violent to not flip the switch to save the person?