7 ms·

I think whataboutism is actually the real shitty thing here. Yes, I think there is a lot wrong within ‘Wall Street’. But those wrongs don’t justify the existen

I think whataboutism is actually the real shitty thing here. Yes, I think there is a lot wrong within ‘Wall Street’. But those wrongs don’t justify the existence of cryptocurrencies in any way. And most of all: it doesn’t absolve cryptocurrencies in any way of their terrible impact on our world. Just the facilating of cryprolocker attacks alone are enough to justify a ban in my view.

api 6y ago
It's not whataboutism. It's hypocrisy. It's deeply hypocritical to attack cryptocurrency when we have a massive parasitic financial industry that does far more damage than anything cryptocurrency has ever done. For just one example, look at how hedge fund and foreign capital speculation in housing is making a home unaffordable for millions upon millions of people and contributing to middle class decline and homelessness. It's a bit like making pot illegal when hard liquor and cigarettes are legal. What it really amounts to is the existing parasitic financial industry using the state to remove a competitor to its own gambling and destructive speculation operation.
- thro7654 6y ago
  Whataboutism is about hypocrisy. Argument: X is bad because Y. Counter: But Z is also bad because Y and I don't hear you saying anything about that! Conclusion: So X isn't bad. E.g. the typical Soviet whataboutism: Argument: The USSR doesn't respect human rights and that's bad. Counter: A u vas negrov linchuyut (but at your place, you lynch negroes). I.e. the US doesn't respect human rights either. Conclusion: So the USSR isn't bad. The mere presence of Z does not invalidate the argument that X is bad because of Y. It's irrelevant, which is why tu quoque is just that, a fallacy of relevance.
  - api 6y ago
    In this case it's about consistency. If marijuana is illegal then alcohol should be illegal too. If cryptocurrency is illegal than socially harmful property speculation, shorting stocks and then trashing companies in the press, casinos, state lotteries, and so on should also be illegal. Inconsistency in these kinds of areas just makes a mockery of the legal system and encourages corruption. There are tons and tons of other problems with this proposal I didn't get into, such as how cryptocurrency is defined. Are we going to start making data structures like linked lists of cryptographic hashes illegal? In-game virtual currencies? Amusement park tokens tracked in a database? Any law would be either overly broad or trivially circumventable.
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      What you may point out is hypocrisy. That hypocrisy still doesn't change anything about cryptocurrencies themselves. Real or perceived hypocrisy doesn't absolve cryptocurrencies in any way. What they are and what they have to account for has to stand on itself, on its own. Two wrongs don't make a right. You also seem to be a bit disingenuous: cryptographic hashes don't boil the ocean. Amusement park tokens idem. They aren't used for ransomware. So this attempt at some kind of slippery slope argument isn't really working, if you would ask me. When money is at stake, logic and reason is the first to fly out of the window. Whatever necessary to make the grift going will be said.

api 6y ago

It's not whataboutism. It's hypocrisy. It's deeply hypocritical to attack cryptocurrency when we have a massive parasitic financial industry that does far more damage than anything cryptocurrency has ever done. For just one example, look at how hedge fund and foreign capital speculation in housing is making a home unaffordable for millions upon millions of people and contributing to middle class decline and homelessness. It's a bit like making pot illegal when hard liquor and cigarettes are legal. What it really amounts to is the existing parasitic financial industry using the state to remove a competitor to its own gambling and destructive speculation operation.

thro7654 6y ago
Whataboutism is about hypocrisy. Argument: X is bad because Y. Counter: But Z is also bad because Y and I don't hear you saying anything about that! Conclusion: So X isn't bad. E.g. the typical Soviet whataboutism: Argument: The USSR doesn't respect human rights and that's bad. Counter: A u vas negrov linchuyut (but at your place, you lynch negroes). I.e. the US doesn't respect human rights either. Conclusion: So the USSR isn't bad. The mere presence of Z does not invalidate the argument that X is bad because of Y. It's irrelevant, which is why tu quoque is just that, a fallacy of relevance.
- api 6y ago
  In this case it's about consistency. If marijuana is illegal then alcohol should be illegal too. If cryptocurrency is illegal than socially harmful property speculation, shorting stocks and then trashing companies in the press, casinos, state lotteries, and so on should also be illegal. Inconsistency in these kinds of areas just makes a mockery of the legal system and encourages corruption. There are tons and tons of other problems with this proposal I didn't get into, such as how cryptocurrency is defined. Are we going to start making data structures like linked lists of cryptographic hashes illegal? In-game virtual currencies? Amusement park tokens tracked in a database? Any law would be either overly broad or trivially circumventable.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    What you may point out is hypocrisy. That hypocrisy still doesn't change anything about cryptocurrencies themselves. Real or perceived hypocrisy doesn't absolve cryptocurrencies in any way. What they are and what they have to account for has to stand on itself, on its own. Two wrongs don't make a right. You also seem to be a bit disingenuous: cryptographic hashes don't boil the ocean. Amusement park tokens idem. They aren't used for ransomware. So this attempt at some kind of slippery slope argument isn't really working, if you would ask me. When money is at stake, logic and reason is the first to fly out of the window. Whatever necessary to make the grift going will be said.