.com had much broader appeal than blockheadism. For one thing, .com stocks were publically traded, my sell signal in December 1999 was seeing the ads on pro football were all for stocks and bonds instead of beer.
Blockheadism on the other hand is hermetic, is dismissive of people who “don’t get it;” you see a bored ape and if you don’t have intense FOMO and buy it right away they don’t have anything to say to you.
I can’t get the sense of entitlement people have that ‘free speech’ doesn’t just mean the government doesn’t put you in jail for speaking your mind but:
* somebody has to give me a free printing press
* somebody has to force people to read the dreck I write
* I need an admiring audience (those people are insulted when somebody votes down their comment on HN.)
I can see that side of argument, but where do you draw the line ? What about government blocking truckers bank accounts. (Without any due processes!) And blocking accounts of people who donate to them. Even if you disagree with what they are doing. They have families to feed.
Let's say this person is part of the family in practice although they aren't part of the family on paper.
This person made me break my promise not to become a seduction trainer, I assigned him to read Ovid's Art of Love, he told me he would read it in Latin, I said I knew you would.
Blockheadism on the other hand is hermetic, is dismissive of people who “don’t get it;” you see a bored ape and if you don’t have intense FOMO and buy it right away they don’t have anything to say to you.