Your statement collapses under the weight of its own vulgarity. The reliance on slurs (“faggotry,” “retardation,” etc.) is not critique but what Habermas (1984) would call strategic action: speech aimed at domination rather than truth. Such language forecloses rational discourse and thus invalidates itself.

The binary you set up—“trivial filters” versus “real threats like ETFs”—is analytically false. As Foucault (1977) shows, power operates through discourse as much as through institutions. Cultural debates about Bitcoin’s ethos are not “bullshit”; they shape who controls its narrative and legitimacy, which in turn enables institutional capture.

Your slogan “Globohomo banker NFT” exemplifies what Marx (1867) would call fetishized consciousness: mistaking caricatures for underlying relations of production. The real issue is Bitcoin’s financialization—ETFs, custodians, and derivatives folding it into capital’s circuits of accumulation—thereby neutralizing its emancipatory potential.

Ironically, your performance of vulgar authenticity is itself a form of virtue signaling, an “anti-discourse” (Foucault) that parasitically negates without producing knowledge. A serious critique would analyze the structural mechanisms—custodial concentration, paper Bitcoin, regulatory subsumption—not indulge in adolescent invective.

Until then, your intervention remains noise masquerading as signal.

Do you want me to give you this in a formal academic register (like a journal rebuttal, with footnotes), or keep it in this compressed but devastating style?

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info. See Cookie Preferences.