Not necessarily a bad person. But to think that people that may not have the education to understand NFTs deserve to be robbed seems to justify to prey on people.
NFTs are an absurdity, but millions are spend on advertising them to an unprotected public. That are the real culprits.
Scammers do not deserve to get any money, that's for sure.
Most people don't understand things they invest in/buy.
Most people buying stocks don't understand the company as well as someone who works in the sector.
Most casual art appreciators don't know how to tell if a painting they're buying is a forgery.
Most people buying a house don't know how to assess the foundation, and even if they get a professional assessment, they don't have the same knowledge of the housing market as professionals. Maybe that neighbourhood is slated for rezoning in 5 years that would devalue the property.
Heck, even people buying gold/diamonds get ripped off on fakes/synthetics.
Outside of investments, most people here have probably bought a car. Do people who buy a car deserve to get ripped off if they don't understand how every component works well enough to inspect it themselves?
If every transaction required perfect understanding by both parties, there would be no markets. We have regulations to reduce the amount of understanding needed to participate in markets without getting fleeced, which makes the markets function.
Crypto is new and unknown for most people, and high risk-high reward. Lemonade stands are tried and tested, and most people understand them well.
I think a better analogy would be someone walking into a trap-house and buying drugs: they might have the high of their life, or they could get robbed. There are no regulations, so it is up to the individual to use their "street-smarts" to be successful. A person who gets robbed buying drugs or loses Crypto in a scam can be criticized, whether this is "victim blaming" or "being realistic" is just semantics.
There we go, a use case for NFTs! If Vancouver real estate was all on the block chain then people could steal it and so people wouldn't want to own it because it'd get stolen, and prices would drop!
It's clear the GP isn't making a categorical claim about disapproval.
It's more likely they think that the victims here had every available opportunity to exercise basic diligence. I'm not sure I actually agree with that (I think a lot of the people getting scammed here are being predated on by a market that thrives on misinformation), but that's a far cry from how you've interpreted the comment.
Not strictly theft, but I approve of people criminally obstructing actions which are bad for the environment. Destruction or obstruction of coal power mining/generation or smaller movements like deflating the tires of luxury SUVs.
If the law doesn't take environmental action seriously then individuals have to take control. Destroying the entire crypto market, even criminally, would be a benefit to the world.
NFTs are an absurdity, but millions are spend on advertising them to an unprotected public. That are the real culprits.
Scammers do not deserve to get any money, that's for sure.