Amusing type of Bitcoiner:
> wants Bitcoin to win
> complains whenever anyone except ultra-libertarian cypherpunks adopt it
Discussion
BREAKING: Larry Fink’s Blackrock sees $100B of net inflows to based no kyc fund FKYC
Virtue signalers
We want the state to die. Holding Bitcoin helps the state prolong that inevitable death. Not hard to understand.
Yeah it's pretty easy to understand. Alan here is emphasizing an accept the inevitable stance, which I agree with, but he is also equating that with having no ill feelings about circumstances and such an immoral leviathon being afforded another lifeline. These do not necessarily go together. Acceptance may come with some healthy negative emotions along the way.
Yeah. What’s wrong? 😁
You didn’t respond to my considered post and then posted this clearly in response to me without tag.
Ok dude.
If you can’t make an argument with a cypherpunk Bitcoiner then perhaps you’re just weak sauce who people shouldn’t actually listen to?
I asked you to consider the nature of the State entirely and who ought have power and you couldn’t do that “Alan Watts”, it was too much for you, you just wanted the status quo state adopting Bitcoiners’ system to be praised and not consider it any further.
You can consider it amusing.
I consider you pissweak because you can’t even challenge the basic premise of your own world view, and extremely ironic naming yourself after Alan Watts and being completely unable to consider a point of view you hadn’t already internalised which also happens to validate your preconceived notions.
You sound upset. Did not mean any offense. This was not a post just about you, but a wider trend I’ve been observing.
Sure. That’s why you didn’t engage in dialogue and instead went and posted this a few minutes later - a wider trend of you not being able to engage people who don’t believe that status quo nation states adopting Bitcoin is a good thing of which you have how many people in your replies?
I responded to you here already nostr:nevent1qqsxww8tk6crf55p4v5mpjc0dj0rcscc8ggnk0qhf3l455whkqtwwccpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdsq3jamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3w0fjkyetyv4jjucmvda6kgqguwaehxw309ahx7um5wgkhyetvv9ujuamvweejuumsv93k2x0ary5
To which I responded here - nostr:note1vsm7wc0etz0v5vhdxcrpn0h24mwqu8kv4d0ettlp3ptzpauqpl6que42u6
You didn’t want to respond to that and went off with your “amusing type of Bitcoiners” post.
Bitcoin winning absolutely entails nation state adoption. Believing otherwise is pure delusion.
And that is a good thing. You are right that nation states will change as a result of Bitcoin becoming the dominant form of money. We aren’t quite there yet, but it is coming. 
Nation state continuance under the status quo is the kind of fallacy someone who self styles under “Alan Watts” really ought not be using as justification for their worldview.
Like that is way out of line with what you’re supposed to be portraying. I’m no Watts expert, but I do know that.
So if you’d like to make the claim that nation state adoption is core to Bitcoin’s enduring success “ALAN WATTS”, you should engage the argument I proposed that nation states ought not continue under the Status Quo and Bitcoiners ought be replacing them and be in charge of those systems which for some bizarre reason you just don’t want to touch.
Your replies are full of anger, intellectual dishonesty, and ad hominem attacks. May you find the peace you are looking for.
Your replies are full of shit, have zero intellectual depth, don’t even match your ideological portrayal of “Alan Watts” and are supposed to pass judgement on something as serious as the state adopting Bitcoin despite having zero rigour behind it.
You’ve been found out here.
You're right that he is failing to engage with your argument. But you are also overreacting and engaging in attacks on his presentation that are probably not relevant and definitely not helpful toward getting him to engage in the real argument you made originally.
That’s fine, I’m just pointing out the irony of how close-minded “Alan Watts” is.
Like if that’s who you’re going to style yourself after
1) don’t be a complete statist cuck -and-
2) actually have an open mind
Agreed but I don't think he's being a statist, just failing to really listen and have an open mind on this one point, to our points of view.
Bruh he was also referring to me and many others. Don't take it personally, and also don't assume he is not engaging in good faith.
What injury does this his comment do to your or my reputation? Hardly worth a squabble, it would seem to me. A better approach would be to turn it into a joke, or address his comment directly on its own merits to offer a counterpoint.
🤔🤔🤔😓
Guilty as charged. I accept fate and make due with my work as an individual, trying only to control what I can control, but that doesn't mean I can't bitch about it a teensy bit.