4 ms·

Non-fing-sequitur straw-man. We can point at ANY part of the sociopolitical spectrum and find hypocrites. I could spew the same sort of such outrageous example

Non-fing-sequitur straw-man. We can point at ANY part of the sociopolitical spectrum and find hypocrites. I could spew the same sort of such outrageous examples about liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists but won't because it has nothing to do with the topic. Suffice to say Nakamoto did have a change of mind and did do something world-changing about it. And, golly, he is a libertarian who made a herculean effort to live up to his own ideals. And as to your "curiosity": catchphrase-labeling usually grossly overstates the POV/philosophy. People labeled "anti-government" are rarely true anarchists; they understand government has its proper place but are (as the label is currently applied) dismayed at how this government is exceeding its granted powers and abusing that which is proper. Ex: Making weapons for government use is a legitimate industry; that those weapons are used to violently invade the home of the terminally ill solely for the purpose of seizing a few plants is worth railing against on Facebook.

bane 13y ago
> Suffice to say Nakamoto did have a change of mind We actually don't know that. On the surface sure look like it, but he could have had a similar personal philosophy before during and after his time working for the government. > We can point at ANY part of the sociopolitical spectrum and find hypocrites. Absolutely agree. I could add also the large number of pacifist liberal vegan types I know who work for the DoD or whatever. >Non-fing-sequitur straw-man It's obviously not, if by your own theory his philosophy is what drove him to develop bitcoin, then it is sequitur to examine that philosophy and how it's expressed. > I could spew the same sort of such outrageous examples about liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists What example did I provide that was outrageous? You either don't work in or near the Fed-space and haven't come across this kind of person daily or you're living in a state of denial.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Just because you live/work in close & frequent proximity with people exemplifying such outrageous cognitive dissonance does not negate the outrageousness thereof. And just because you don't know whether Nakamoto suffered & acted on such cognitive dissonance doesn't justify posting outrageous examples of what you're imputing.
  - bane 13y ago
    I guess everything is outrageous then so nothing is?
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Who said everything is outrageous? That X is not uncommon doesn't mean everything is X.
      - bane 13y ago
        Your claim is that my examples are "outrageous", which implies they are unusual or uncommon. But they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous. If my examples of common behavior is outrageous, then every behavior, from common to rare must be outrageous by the definition of the word. In fact my original post is questioning why examples like this are so common. If really pressed, I suppose I could go through my FB friend's walls anonymize and take screenshots of the thousands upon thousands of posts by Government workers and contractors I know who endlessly post things similar to my example. But I'm not sure I should spend my time trying to make you aware of a phenomenon that's plainly obvious for anybody to see.
        ctdonath 13y ago
        they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous. Our definitions differ. I'm going with "very bad or wrong in a way that causes anger; too bad to be accepted or allowed; going beyond all standards of what is right or decent; deficient in propriety or good taste". I'm aware of the phenomenon, and noted that it is plainly in abundance throughout the sociopolitical spectrum.
mpyne 13y ago
> Suffice to say Nakamoto did have a change of mind and did do something world-changing about it. It's not clear he actually changed his mind though, at least not since young adulthood. His daughter grew up being told to imagine a government agencies, with the correct reaction being to hide in a closet from there. Nakamoto's views certainly appear to be long-held and consistent. The "change" that occurred was related more toward having to experience inter-bank transfer fees while buying model trains from the U.K. After all as late as 2001 he was working for the FAA.

bane 13y ago

> Suffice to say Nakamoto did have a change of mind We actually don't know that. On the surface sure look like it, but he could have had a similar personal philosophy before during and after his time working for the government. > We can point at ANY part of the sociopolitical spectrum and find hypocrites. Absolutely agree. I could add also the large number of pacifist liberal vegan types I know who work for the DoD or whatever. >Non-fing-sequitur straw-man It's obviously not, if by your own theory his philosophy is what drove him to develop bitcoin, then it is sequitur to examine that philosophy and how it's expressed. > I could spew the same sort of such outrageous examples about liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists What example did I provide that was outrageous? You either don't work in or near the Fed-space and haven't come across this kind of person daily or you're living in a state of denial.

ctdonath 13y ago
Just because you live/work in close & frequent proximity with people exemplifying such outrageous cognitive dissonance does not negate the outrageousness thereof. And just because you don't know whether Nakamoto suffered & acted on such cognitive dissonance doesn't justify posting outrageous examples of what you're imputing.
- bane 13y ago
  I guess everything is outrageous then so nothing is?
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Who said everything is outrageous? That X is not uncommon doesn't mean everything is X.
    - bane 13y ago
      Your claim is that my examples are "outrageous", which implies they are unusual or uncommon. But they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous. If my examples of common behavior is outrageous, then every behavior, from common to rare must be outrageous by the definition of the word. In fact my original post is questioning why examples like this are so common. If really pressed, I suppose I could go through my FB friend's walls anonymize and take screenshots of the thousands upon thousands of posts by Government workers and contractors I know who endlessly post things similar to my example. But I'm not sure I should spend my time trying to make you aware of a phenomenon that's plainly obvious for anybody to see.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous. Our definitions differ. I'm going with "very bad or wrong in a way that causes anger; too bad to be accepted or allowed; going beyond all standards of what is right or decent; deficient in propriety or good taste". I'm aware of the phenomenon, and noted that it is plainly in abundance throughout the sociopolitical spectrum.

mpyne 13y ago

> Suffice to say Nakamoto did have a change of mind and did do something world-changing about it. It's not clear he actually changed his mind though, at least not since young adulthood. His daughter grew up being told to imagine a government agencies, with the correct reaction being to hide in a closet from there. Nakamoto's views certainly appear to be long-held and consistent. The "change" that occurred was related more toward having to experience inter-bank transfer fees while buying model trains from the U.K. After all as late as 2001 he was working for the FAA.