4 ms·

I don't like seeing Molly White and David Gerard in the same sentence. Molly White is a legit journalist with the mind of a scientist who cares about truth. Dav

I don't like seeing Molly White and David Gerard in the same sentence. Molly White is a legit journalist with the mind of a scientist who cares about truth. David Gerard is a crank who will take any story and spin it to support his "crypto bad" narrative. They both like making fun of crypto, but that's about where the similarities end.

wpietri 4y ago
That's quite a take in that White doesn't talk about herself as a journalist but a programmer who does some writing, whereas Gerard has been writing articles and books about this since 2016 and sees himself as a journalist. As do I, for what it's worth. Anyhow, as somebody who has reading them for years, I think they both have equally negative takes about crypto, although Gerard is certainly more salty about it. I think of him more in the English tradition of journalism, which is much more flavorful then the standard American stuff. And regardless, Gerard's "'crypto bad' narrative" has been proven much, much more accurate than both pro-crypto partisans and nominally crypto-neutral mainstream journalists, whose naivete has helped a lot of their readers lose a lot of money.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  I'm not interested in getting into an identity politics argument about who identifies as a journalist, who identifies as a woman, or who identifies as an attack helicopter. If David Gerard wants to be called a "journalist", that's fine, he's a journalist. But he's also a crank who will spin any story to support his narrative. Even if tomorrow Bitcoin would somehow magically end world hunger, Gerard would find a way to make the argument that it's actually bad for humanity because hunger makes you strive for better things, or whatever.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Oh? In that case, it should be very easy for you to go back into his archives and find some things where his supposedly egregious anti-crypto bias led him to say things that have been proven false. I think you'll have a hard time doing that, because what you see as bias looks to me like him correctly spotting the BS early on.
    - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
      Sure! Here's David Gerard from 2 months ago, speculating what will happen with SBF: > SBF will be able to disappear with total facial reshaping also total arm and leg reshaping and total concrete shoe reshaping Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yubrvg/sucker_voice_im_in_ftx_files_for_bankruptcy_and/iw9wh1k/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yubrvg/sucker_voi... It's been 2 months and SBF still hasn't done total facial reshaping, neither has he done total arm reshaping, nor has he done total leg reshaping. And also he hasn't died ("concrete shoe reshaping"). This dude's a crank.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        If the best you can do is point to a joke Reddit comment that you apparently haven't fully understood as a joke, then I think we're done here.
        baobabKoodaa 4y ago
        Here's what you asked: > find some things where his supposedly egregious anti-crypto bias led him to say things that have been proven false. I showed you an example where his egregious anti-crypto bias led him to say some things that have been proven false. And your response is "it was just a prank bro", and "I think we're done here"? Yeah, doesn't look like you care about evidence that challenges your beliefs. You have that in common with mr Gerard.
        wpietri 4y ago
        I think you are smart enough to have figured this out, but let me spell it out for you explicitly just in case. You are claiming that he is failing as a journalist because of an anti-crypto bias. I am looking for proof of that. So what I'm talking about is statements made in a journalistic context where he has gotten something important about the crypto world provably wrong because of his supposed bias. Your best evidence is not, say, taking a citation from his book, or even his blog, and then showing with actual facts that he made an error, and then demonstrating how his anti-crypto bias led him to a conclusion that was not only proven wrong, but that he at the time should have clearly known was wrong about something important to the topic. It's taking a random reddit comment that you apparently can't recognize as a joke and say it hasn't happened yet. To me this makes you look entirely unserious. I can't even tell that you know what journalism is from your behavior here. So yeah, talking with you further looks like a waste of my time. As crypto proponents have generally been for me since 2015, honestly. So yeah, if you want to think bad things about me, go wild, plenty of crypto adherents do.

wpietri 4y ago

That's quite a take in that White doesn't talk about herself as a journalist but a programmer who does some writing, whereas Gerard has been writing articles and books about this since 2016 and sees himself as a journalist. As do I, for what it's worth. Anyhow, as somebody who has reading them for years, I think they both have equally negative takes about crypto, although Gerard is certainly more salty about it. I think of him more in the English tradition of journalism, which is much more flavorful then the standard American stuff. And regardless, Gerard's "'crypto bad' narrative" has been proven much, much more accurate than both pro-crypto partisans and nominally crypto-neutral mainstream journalists, whose naivete has helped a lot of their readers lose a lot of money.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago
I'm not interested in getting into an identity politics argument about who identifies as a journalist, who identifies as a woman, or who identifies as an attack helicopter. If David Gerard wants to be called a "journalist", that's fine, he's a journalist. But he's also a crank who will spin any story to support his narrative. Even if tomorrow Bitcoin would somehow magically end world hunger, Gerard would find a way to make the argument that it's actually bad for humanity because hunger makes you strive for better things, or whatever.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Oh? In that case, it should be very easy for you to go back into his archives and find some things where his supposedly egregious anti-crypto bias led him to say things that have been proven false. I think you'll have a hard time doing that, because what you see as bias looks to me like him correctly spotting the BS early on.
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    Sure! Here's David Gerard from 2 months ago, speculating what will happen with SBF: > SBF will be able to disappear with total facial reshaping also total arm and leg reshaping and total concrete shoe reshaping Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yubrvg/sucker_voice_im_in_ftx_files_for_bankruptcy_and/iw9wh1k/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yubrvg/sucker_voi... It's been 2 months and SBF still hasn't done total facial reshaping, neither has he done total arm reshaping, nor has he done total leg reshaping. And also he hasn't died ("concrete shoe reshaping"). This dude's a crank.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      If the best you can do is point to a joke Reddit comment that you apparently haven't fully understood as a joke, then I think we're done here.
      - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
        Here's what you asked: > find some things where his supposedly egregious anti-crypto bias led him to say things that have been proven false. I showed you an example where his egregious anti-crypto bias led him to say some things that have been proven false. And your response is "it was just a prank bro", and "I think we're done here"? Yeah, doesn't look like you care about evidence that challenges your beliefs. You have that in common with mr Gerard.
        wpietri 4y ago
        I think you are smart enough to have figured this out, but let me spell it out for you explicitly just in case. You are claiming that he is failing as a journalist because of an anti-crypto bias. I am looking for proof of that. So what I'm talking about is statements made in a journalistic context where he has gotten something important about the crypto world provably wrong because of his supposed bias. Your best evidence is not, say, taking a citation from his book, or even his blog, and then showing with actual facts that he made an error, and then demonstrating how his anti-crypto bias led him to a conclusion that was not only proven wrong, but that he at the time should have clearly known was wrong about something important to the topic. It's taking a random reddit comment that you apparently can't recognize as a joke and say it hasn't happened yet. To me this makes you look entirely unserious. I can't even tell that you know what journalism is from your behavior here. So yeah, talking with you further looks like a waste of my time. As crypto proponents have generally been for me since 2015, honestly. So yeah, if you want to think bad things about me, go wild, plenty of crypto adherents do.