4 ms·

> But when you come across someone on Twitter with a hexagon-shaped profile picture, your chances are at least as good that you’ve come across someone in the fi

> But when you come across someone on Twitter with a hexagon-shaped profile picture, your chances are at least as good that you’ve come across someone in the first bucket than in the second Ah so this is about twitter culture. I agree, it is strange that people showing some outward interest in crypto are ignored. These conversations basically go like this <user with nft monkey avatar>: thats not accurate, the flash loan was used to borrow and acquire a bunch of the governance token and then launch and pass an emergency governance proposal and the primary issue is that the protocol allowed for this to occur in a single block, not the flash loan <user with predisposition that requires crypto to be bad>: you have an NFT profile picture your opinion is invalid! I just screenshot it! so the technical person that could improve understanding is surrounded by perpetual ignorance

1270018080 4y ago
I'll have to side with <user with predisposition that requires crypto to be bad> for the same reason I wouldn't give a Scientologist a chance to speak either.
- vmception 4y ago
  that's ignorant by all four Oxford listed definitions of ignorant.
  - 1270018080 4y ago
    I would argue I have a less ignorant view of Scientology or cryptocurrency than someone who is indoctrinated. There isn't going to be any useful information to glean from an active cult member expressing their views on their cult. Who is really ignorant?
    - vmception 4y ago
      My example was about the accuracy of a statement, it seems the conversation should more often be about accuracy instead of deflection. Or if the accuracy was undermined by indoctrination then the conversation should be about why its not accurate and why that would be clouded by indoctrination. And even in your Scientology analogy, I think there are limited similarities because you are talking about scientology often to scientologists? Do you get into those kind of conversations? If you're not getting into those kind of conversations than thats just an ad hominem attack which is a very poor form of argument and also meets one of the Oxford definitions of ignorant ( informal - discourteous or rude; west indies - angry or quick-tempered.) These are traits to avoid, pejoratives.

1270018080 4y ago

I'll have to side with <user with predisposition that requires crypto to be bad> for the same reason I wouldn't give a Scientologist a chance to speak either.

vmception 4y ago
that's ignorant by all four Oxford listed definitions of ignorant.
- 1270018080 4y ago
  I would argue I have a less ignorant view of Scientology or cryptocurrency than someone who is indoctrinated. There isn't going to be any useful information to glean from an active cult member expressing their views on their cult. Who is really ignorant?
  - vmception 4y ago
    My example was about the accuracy of a statement, it seems the conversation should more often be about accuracy instead of deflection. Or if the accuracy was undermined by indoctrination then the conversation should be about why its not accurate and why that would be clouded by indoctrination. And even in your Scientology analogy, I think there are limited similarities because you are talking about scientology often to scientologists? Do you get into those kind of conversations? If you're not getting into those kind of conversations than thats just an ad hominem attack which is a very poor form of argument and also meets one of the Oxford definitions of ignorant ( informal - discourteous or rude; west indies - angry or quick-tempered.) These are traits to avoid, pejoratives.