If you keep posting this sort of low-value flamewar comment we are going to have to ban you. We have cut you miles of slack for years, but the slack is not infinite.
I still feel like absolutely bonkers stuff is posted about crypto and they get a pass - extremely low-effort lies and drivel - then I post my counterpoint hot take and it’s “You flame bait moron!”
Similarly I am passionate about China and communism given… the murders in my family… but again, we are supposed to call out certain topics but not others.
My defense, but noted on I’m on my final final warning.
Thanks. I know it always feels like the other side started it and did worse [1]. There are always datapoints around to support that idea, since we don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here [2].
But if people feel like that makes it ok to break the rules themselves, we end up with a downward spiral [3], so that can't be right. The solution is to stick to the site guidelines no matter what other people do, and let us know about the other cases by flagging them or emailing us.
>If you keep posting this sort of low-value flamewar comment we are going to have to ban you. We have cut you miles of slack for years, but the slack is not infinite.
Turnabout should be fair play here. Dang's continual low-value abuse of users to enforce suppression of seibelj and others' speech should be met with flagging and every possible option to reduce the effect of these threats.
If it is possible to ban dang, we need to be finding ways to do so. If not, consider his abuse behavior like the payment processor 'Stripe.' Robust alternatives must be used to minimize the deterretive effect of threats.
Either way, we should stop cutting slack to Dang's efforts and focus on how to ensure adjusting of behavior is bilateral. Our slack for Dang is not infinite. If Dang does not enjoy the comments of others perhaps he should move to another platform :)
If you’re gonna make wild prophecies about how crypto is going to completely democratize control of the money supply - and crypto boosters love to rant about stuff like that - then yeah, people are going to keep on finding fault with it until someone comes up with a new replacement for “proof of turning a fuckton of energy into waste heat” that isn’t “proof of having a fuckton of money invested in the coin”.
The number two crypto left Proof of Waste and that’s good, yay! But the whole scene is still in the shadow of Bitcoin’s Proof of Waste, and until that does the same, or shrinks to an irreverent shitcoin, people are gonna hate on all crypto for its energy usage.
This has never been an issue that can be discussed in such an abbreviated form. So you're criticizing earlier simplistic dismissals of crypto because of their over simplifications. Yet now you're also trying to dismiss a more detailed bit of thinking on crypto when it tries to correct the exact faults you found in those simplistic criticism precisely because it is more detailed. You can't have it both ways.
I think it's hilarious that you call this moving the goalposts. As if the critiques about country-sized energy waste were the only issue raised until this moment. When that was actually a later-stage critique as "mining" grew and grew.
