5 ms·

The important thing here is to remember that anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist, out to destroy America and freedom. There's no possibility that this i

by srl 13y ago

The important thing here is to remember that anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist, out to destroy America and freedom. There's no possibility that this is a well-intentioned effort, rather than bank-funded malice. Furthermore, it's all the other party's fault. This guy's actually a closet republican / a perfect example of how extreme liberal democrats have become. waterlesscloud posted a link to the letter. Read it, then (if you have a real opinion past "government = evil" or some equally inane platitude) contact your senator. Some thoughts on the content (from someone not particularly optimistic about bitcoin, but somewhat more optimistic about cryptocurrencies in general): Manchin does not actually explain how the use of bitcoin harms anyone who does not deliberately buy-in. The theory that it harms the economy in general simply by being volatile strikes me as silly, given that it represents a vanishingly small fraction of our economy (which, as I understand it, is part of the reason it's so volatile, meaning that as its share increases, volatility goes down).

Crito 13y ago
How this isn't working for me: "I disagree with or dislike this man." therefore "He must be trying to take freedoms from me." How this is working for me: "He is trying to take freedoms from me." therefore "I disagree with and dislike this man" (To prevent any speculation, I do not currently own any Bitcoin, nor have I ever owned any Bitcoin. I was however once tipped 10 doge on reddit for a rather clever dick joke... I do not have any sort of financial bone in this matter.)
- MWil 13y ago
  so close to another dick joke
Zigurd 13y ago
Very few politicians have a firsthand understanding of issues like this. You don't have to attribute "fascism" to them to wonder who actually drafted the talking points embodied in that letter.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I think your average HN-er would be surprised by how knowledgeable the staff of politicians are about various things.
  - makomk 13y ago
    You do realise that you're essentially agreeing with the comment you're replying to, since your argument is that it's the staff of politicians who are knowledgeable and not the politicians themselves?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      His implication is that it was drafted by lobbyists, because "how else would a Senator hear about Bitcoin?" My point was that staff are very knowledgeable about these things, so I wouldn't assume it was lobbyists.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure his staff understand this well enough to appraise the senator of who stands on which side of this issue. But that hard-working and intelligent staff isn't there to get in the way of a position backed by lobbyists and donations. They are there to make it work for the senator and minimize risk.
weixiyen 13y ago
Rather than conjuring up this strawman, maybe you should just reply to the one single comment that even comes close to the stance you are describing.
- Crito 13y ago
  Can't rake in the karma without toplevel posts making broad and vague complaints about unspecified comments. It's a common pattern both here and on reddit (because top-level meta-commments really are effective for farming karma), and it should really be against the guidelines. Best case scenario: the complaint is 100% valid and on target, but because it is a top level comment and correct it will rise to the top of the discussion while the offending comments will be downvoted and buried at the bottom. Refutations for shitposts should be buried with the shitposts^, visible to those who decide to read the shitposts but out of the way for everyone else. We don't need all discussions "bookended" by shitposts and comments refuting shitposts. ^ Not buried by being downvoted of course (accurate refutations of shitposts should generally be upvoted), but rather buried by merely being the child comment of a downvoted post.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    If users vote these up, doesn't it meant that they want to read comments like that? Rules are nice, but you can't beat democracy.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Crito 13y ago
      I don't think it really implies that. Not outside of any idealized world anyway. A few things are going on: * Highly visible posts (on HN, you can get visibility early on by making top level posts. Very recent top level posts tend to be displayed at the top of the page) will receive more votes, up or down, than posts which are less visible. * Votes are crude. I might see two comments which I think are good, and vote both of them up. But what if I thought one of those comments was not merely good, but excellent? I cannot communicate that to HN without either neglecting to upvote the merely good comment, or by 'strategically' downvoting the good comment. Combine these and a good top level comment refuting a comment will likely receive more upvotes than a superb child comment refuting a comment, even if each individual reader in the thread would say that they preferred the child comment. Vote counts, despite appearing democratic from 1000', do not necessarily illustrate the will of the readers. There is a third thing going on too: * People love online drama and arguments. Exhibit A would be Reddit's 'subreddit drama' subreddit, which does nothing but link to arguments on reddit for the amusement of the subscribers. Because of this, posts that are confrontational or take unnecessarily strong stances and indict large vaguely defined groups of people will rake in the upvotes. Maybe that is what HN readers want, but should that be what HN gives them? If the site ran itself as a pure democracy with no guidelines or moderator assisted shaping, it would all just be image macros and pictures of pets.
tsax 13y ago
Restriction of freedom is too easy to these people. This is why there's a general angst among libertarians. Any and every problem is to be solved by legislation, filled in by a regulatory agency. Sorry if you're more offended by the rhetoric of those whose freedom is restricted than by dastardly statist actions by those who couldn't even explain what it is they are trying to solve (Do you think Manchin can explain what Bitcoin is?)
higherpurpose 13y ago
What a ridiculous argument. Even if it's "well intentioned", that doesn't mean it's not trying to take away a freedom from you. I'm sure NSA was well-intentioned, too, post 9/11 - at least initially before they discovered what power they have, but that's a whole other issue. You could also agree that Bitcoin needs to be banned, and that banning it is taking a freedom away from you. They are not exclusive. What worries me most is that they will try to ban the protocol, and not just the USD-Bitcoin and Bitcoin-USD exchanges. Banning the protocol could have much greater negative consequences in the world of programming and cryptography, and it's probably not constitutional anyway.
VMG 13y ago
> There's no possibility that this is a well-intentioned effort, rather than bank-funded malice. I'm pretty sure that every kind of fascism was well-intentioned. Unfortunately, it's not the intention that counts.
josephschmoe 13y ago
Bitcoin is the world's most transparent ponzi scheme.

by srl 13y ago

Crito 13y ago

How this isn't working for me: "I disagree with or dislike this man." therefore "He must be trying to take freedoms from me." How this is working for me: "He is trying to take freedoms from me." therefore "I disagree with and dislike this man" (To prevent any speculation, I do not currently own any Bitcoin, nor have I ever owned any Bitcoin. I was however once tipped 10 doge on reddit for a rather clever dick joke... I do not have any sort of financial bone in this matter.)

MWil 13y ago
so close to another dick joke

Zigurd 13y ago

Very few politicians have a firsthand understanding of issues like this. You don't have to attribute "fascism" to them to wonder who actually drafted the talking points embodied in that letter.

rayiner 13y ago
I think your average HN-er would be surprised by how knowledgeable the staff of politicians are about various things.
- makomk 13y ago
  You do realise that you're essentially agreeing with the comment you're replying to, since your argument is that it's the staff of politicians who are knowledgeable and not the politicians themselves?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    His implication is that it was drafted by lobbyists, because "how else would a Senator hear about Bitcoin?" My point was that staff are very knowledgeable about these things, so I wouldn't assume it was lobbyists.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure his staff understand this well enough to appraise the senator of who stands on which side of this issue. But that hard-working and intelligent staff isn't there to get in the way of a position backed by lobbyists and donations. They are there to make it work for the senator and minimize risk.

weixiyen 13y ago

Rather than conjuring up this strawman, maybe you should just reply to the one single comment that even comes close to the stance you are describing.

Crito 13y ago
Can't rake in the karma without toplevel posts making broad and vague complaints about unspecified comments. It's a common pattern both here and on reddit (because top-level meta-commments really are effective for farming karma), and it should really be against the guidelines. Best case scenario: the complaint is 100% valid and on target, but because it is a top level comment and correct it will rise to the top of the discussion while the offending comments will be downvoted and buried at the bottom. Refutations for shitposts should be buried with the shitposts^, visible to those who decide to read the shitposts but out of the way for everyone else. We don't need all discussions "bookended" by shitposts and comments refuting shitposts. ^ Not buried by being downvoted of course (accurate refutations of shitposts should generally be upvoted), but rather buried by merely being the child comment of a downvoted post.
- jrockway 13y ago
  If users vote these up, doesn't it meant that they want to read comments like that? Rules are nice, but you can't beat democracy.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Crito 13y ago
    I don't think it really implies that. Not outside of any idealized world anyway. A few things are going on: * Highly visible posts (on HN, you can get visibility early on by making top level posts. Very recent top level posts tend to be displayed at the top of the page) will receive more votes, up or down, than posts which are less visible. * Votes are crude. I might see two comments which I think are good, and vote both of them up. But what if I thought one of those comments was not merely good, but excellent? I cannot communicate that to HN without either neglecting to upvote the merely good comment, or by 'strategically' downvoting the good comment. Combine these and a good top level comment refuting a comment will likely receive more upvotes than a superb child comment refuting a comment, even if each individual reader in the thread would say that they preferred the child comment. Vote counts, despite appearing democratic from 1000', do not necessarily illustrate the will of the readers. There is a third thing going on too: * People love online drama and arguments. Exhibit A would be Reddit's 'subreddit drama' subreddit, which does nothing but link to arguments on reddit for the amusement of the subscribers. Because of this, posts that are confrontational or take unnecessarily strong stances and indict large vaguely defined groups of people will rake in the upvotes. Maybe that is what HN readers want, but should that be what HN gives them? If the site ran itself as a pure democracy with no guidelines or moderator assisted shaping, it would all just be image macros and pictures of pets.

tsax 13y ago

Restriction of freedom is too easy to these people. This is why there's a general angst among libertarians. Any and every problem is to be solved by legislation, filled in by a regulatory agency. Sorry if you're more offended by the rhetoric of those whose freedom is restricted than by dastardly statist actions by those who couldn't even explain what it is they are trying to solve (Do you think Manchin can explain what Bitcoin is?)

higherpurpose 13y ago

What a ridiculous argument. Even if it's "well intentioned", that doesn't mean it's not trying to take away a freedom from you. I'm sure NSA was well-intentioned, too, post 9/11 - at least initially before they discovered what power they have, but that's a whole other issue. You could also agree that Bitcoin needs to be banned, and that banning it is taking a freedom away from you. They are not exclusive. What worries me most is that they will try to ban the protocol, and not just the USD-Bitcoin and Bitcoin-USD exchanges. Banning the protocol could have much greater negative consequences in the world of programming and cryptography, and it's probably not constitutional anyway.

VMG 13y ago

> There's no possibility that this is a well-intentioned effort, rather than bank-funded malice. I'm pretty sure that every kind of fascism was well-intentioned. Unfortunately, it's not the intention that counts.

josephschmoe 13y ago

Bitcoin is the world's most transparent ponzi scheme.