| > I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, I didn't see any defense of nuance from you. > I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test. Here you don't add any nuance to the conversation, you just again attack people based on your assumptions about their level of knowledge. > you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, I didn't see any such claim in the comment you responded to. > And you're the rational one? This is defending nuance? Or is this just an ad hominem attack? > Spoken like a true intellectual. Look, another ad hominem attack. If you intent was to ask for evidence to back up those assertions, you did a very poor job of doing that in a way that promotes nuanced discussion. |
You call my position ridiculous (without even understanding it). As is evident from your next point where you state I'm "defending" crypto. I've made it obvious multiple times that I agree that at least 90% of crypto projects fail and have no (mainstream) utility. The nuance I added is to not forget about that 10% and that regardless of success/failure, crypto in itself has interesting ideas.
Ideas that are fun to reason about as they touch many aspects: economical, philosophical, technical, political.
The only thing I said really is to be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN.
Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation) I'd encourage intellectual curiosity, as it's driven by important macro conditions for young people. Why not try to understand that better?
For the above position you call me ridiculous and imply I'm a crypto bro. You continue that you will believe nothing that I will say. In a bad faith discussion like that, don't expect high quality replies. After all, you don't believe anything anyway.