4 ms·

We aren't talking about that though, we are talking about whether someone who falla for a scam bears any responsibility for that, at least in this thread starte

We aren't talking about that though, we are talking about whether someone who falla for a scam bears any responsibility for that, at least in this thread started by the parent comment. When you walk into a building with a big sign above it that says "warning: scams ahead" can we really say "blaming the people that walked in here is unequivocally wrong"?

arcticbull 5y ago
Seems like your lede is “why not victim blame, honestly? Should we really ignore what she was wearing when she walked down that back alley?” This isn’t an argument that I think is particularly worth entertaining. People should exercise due caution at all times appropriate to their surroundings. However if a criminal robs them it’s the criminals fault.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  It's always the criminal's fault. But we aren't trying to blame the criminal in here, we are trying to blame the infrastructure the criminal used. It's a false dichotomy.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    If the main thing an infrastructure enables is crime, then it’s ok to blame that infrastructure. For instance if there’s a network of tunnels under the border used exclusively for smuggling, that’s bad infrastructure. Our reaction wouldn’t be, well, let’s arrest the criminals but leave those tunnels, the tunnels did nothing wrong!! Doing so would simply give the next criminal a head start. This is a great analogy for crypto. Sure once in a while an asymlum seeker may get through too, but overwhelmingly it’s narcos and Bolivian marching powder. So we blow up the tunnels.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      It's not that great an analogy actually. It's not about the main thing an infrastructure enables, it's about what the infrastructure is designed for. Tunnels under the border are specifically there to smuggle. Highways are there to do move anything you want, including illegal activity, which is policed separately. And the asylum seekers and Bolivian marching powder examples are good to address the main point here as well. Does the cokehead share any blame in using coke? Is that victim blaming? Should asylum seeking be illegal? Was bitcoin created to break the law? In some ways. But it was designed to facilitate commerce without regard for legality. It's not like a smuggling tunnel, it's like a highway. And it's like that because sometimes you want to smuggle something, like asylum seekers, but you want it to serve legitimate purposes also. So not a very good analogy at all.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        This is a tortured reading. > It's not about the main thing an infrastructure enables, it's about what the infrastructure is designed for. It's not at all, what it was originally designed for is irrelevant, the question is what it's being used for. > Does the cokehead share any blame in using coke? Is that victim blaming? Should asylum seeking be illegal? These are all utterly aside the point. These are matters of law. Law governs. Infrastructure which facilitates that is better than infrastructure which does not. Infrastructure that makes breaking the law easy is worse than one that does not. > Was bitcoin created to break the law? In some ways. Again intent is completely irrelevant except for the prosecution of those doing the creation. Because cryptocurrency is slower, less efficient, more volatile, and incorporates dramatically more counter-party risk than classic payment methods it self-selects primarily for the criminal activity. It's useful as a payments system of last resort in certain cases but that's dwarfed by the illicit use which is in turn dwarfed by speculative use. It actually creates roughly zero value.
        betwixthewires 5y ago
        > It's not at all, what it was originally designed for is irrelevant, the question is what it's being used for. Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." > These are all utterly aside the point. No, they are the point. This thread was about victim blaming. And you brought up asylum seekers, broadening the discussion to include whether legality should apply at all, or whether we should consider ethical use of a tool regardless of legality. I'm not bringing anything new up in this discussion, I'm only replying directly to points made. > Infrastructure that makes breaking the law easy is worse than one that does not. Even if that infrastructure primarily serves (or was created to serve, you choose) the purpose of smuggling, for example, asylum seekers? Your entire point in this comment seems to be "everything you bring up is irrelevant" which begs the question, why are we even having this discussion at all?

arcticbull 5y ago

Seems like your lede is “why not victim blame, honestly? Should we really ignore what she was wearing when she walked down that back alley?” This isn’t an argument that I think is particularly worth entertaining. People should exercise due caution at all times appropriate to their surroundings. However if a criminal robs them it’s the criminals fault.

betwixthewires 5y ago
It's always the criminal's fault. But we aren't trying to blame the criminal in here, we are trying to blame the infrastructure the criminal used. It's a false dichotomy.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  If the main thing an infrastructure enables is crime, then it’s ok to blame that infrastructure. For instance if there’s a network of tunnels under the border used exclusively for smuggling, that’s bad infrastructure. Our reaction wouldn’t be, well, let’s arrest the criminals but leave those tunnels, the tunnels did nothing wrong!! Doing so would simply give the next criminal a head start. This is a great analogy for crypto. Sure once in a while an asymlum seeker may get through too, but overwhelmingly it’s narcos and Bolivian marching powder. So we blow up the tunnels.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    It's not that great an analogy actually. It's not about the main thing an infrastructure enables, it's about what the infrastructure is designed for. Tunnels under the border are specifically there to smuggle. Highways are there to do move anything you want, including illegal activity, which is policed separately. And the asylum seekers and Bolivian marching powder examples are good to address the main point here as well. Does the cokehead share any blame in using coke? Is that victim blaming? Should asylum seeking be illegal? Was bitcoin created to break the law? In some ways. But it was designed to facilitate commerce without regard for legality. It's not like a smuggling tunnel, it's like a highway. And it's like that because sometimes you want to smuggle something, like asylum seekers, but you want it to serve legitimate purposes also. So not a very good analogy at all.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      This is a tortured reading. > It's not about the main thing an infrastructure enables, it's about what the infrastructure is designed for. It's not at all, what it was originally designed for is irrelevant, the question is what it's being used for. > Does the cokehead share any blame in using coke? Is that victim blaming? Should asylum seeking be illegal? These are all utterly aside the point. These are matters of law. Law governs. Infrastructure which facilitates that is better than infrastructure which does not. Infrastructure that makes breaking the law easy is worse than one that does not. > Was bitcoin created to break the law? In some ways. Again intent is completely irrelevant except for the prosecution of those doing the creation. Because cryptocurrency is slower, less efficient, more volatile, and incorporates dramatically more counter-party risk than classic payment methods it self-selects primarily for the criminal activity. It's useful as a payments system of last resort in certain cases but that's dwarfed by the illicit use which is in turn dwarfed by speculative use. It actually creates roughly zero value.
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        > It's not at all, what it was originally designed for is irrelevant, the question is what it's being used for. Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." > These are all utterly aside the point. No, they are the point. This thread was about victim blaming. And you brought up asylum seekers, broadening the discussion to include whether legality should apply at all, or whether we should consider ethical use of a tool regardless of legality. I'm not bringing anything new up in this discussion, I'm only replying directly to points made. > Infrastructure that makes breaking the law easy is worse than one that does not. Even if that infrastructure primarily serves (or was created to serve, you choose) the purpose of smuggling, for example, asylum seekers? Your entire point in this comment seems to be "everything you bring up is irrelevant" which begs the question, why are we even having this discussion at all?