Topic: Anti-Bitcoin Socialist Propaganda in New Zealand - page 2. (Read 10505 times)

Just to be clear, I'm not in PR.  Hence the reason I said, "Hire".  You know, professionals.  

Now I can't remember the last time I've seen such broken spirits.  Defeated by the very system you despise.  My question is why are you still involved?  You really think a select few Bitcoiners are going to magically take over the world with no business support?  That is a delusion.  You think Bitcoin can't die?  Another delusion.  You think the rhetoric coming from these people and people like them can't stop Bitcoin cold?  Hella delusional.  

It seems some of you have bought into this delusion that Bitcoin is invincible.  Where this thinking comes from, I don't know.  But it's not reality.  Bitcoin is vulnerable on multiple fronts and that's long before you get to a campaign for the hearts and minds of the public.  And if you lose that, you have no businesses and without business, Bitcoin is nothing and has no value.  And as I've said repeatedly, businesses are not going to accept Bitcoin for goods and services, if it's negatively labeled.  Period.

I can hear it now..."Well f*ck em!"  "WE DONT NEED EM!!!"  "Bunch of sheeple IDIOTS!!"  

Ah yes, the cries of ultimate defeat.  Take a good whiff because this is exactly what it will sound like as Bitcoin fades into obscurity like the crypto Napster and other wiser groups step up and bring forth the crypto "iTunes", and then the real revolution will begin.  Don't worry, we'll always remember Bitcoin, just as we remember Napster.  It just won't be worth anything.

And as you return to your caves to lick your wounds and replace your fried GPU's, you'll remember this conversation and the countless others that came before and after it.  And it's at this moment, the words we've all heard countless times will finally makes sense:

"Those who do not know their history, are doomed to repeat it."

1) CHILL OUT.  Bitcoin will be fine without "professional PR people". Many people are smart: they read about it, figure out how it works and invest in it.  Regarding public relations: if you knew more about PR, you'd know that there are 4 possible states that an idea can exist in, defined by 2 axes: Known/Unknown and Positive/Negative. 3 combinations are fine: Known/Positive, Unknown/Positive, and Unknown/Negative. A problem only arises when you get Known/Negative. You may proceed in several directions depending on which problem you are faced with. In some cases, having LESS publicity is the fix for a PR problem. I find it plausible that bitcoin could benefit from less publicity at some point in the future (we're not selling shoes to dumb kids, are we?).  I'm not advocating any particular strategy, merely pointing out that this issue is a bit more nuanced that you seem to state.

2) You won't "argue on the same stage as Paul Krugman" - he's part of an elaborately constructed academic system and tradition that has gained legitimacy over hundreds of years. Certain aspects of that system specifically misrepresent facts "for the public good". Arguing within that realm serves no purpose. It's like arguing with a Christian fundamentalist in a church. They'll keep quoting the bible, and you'll keep trying to bring in FACTS and CRITICAL THINKING. If Krugman can claim that the statement "we live in an era of wildly irresponsible money printing, with runaway inflation just around the corner" is a CONSPIRACY THEORY, it's impossible to argue with him at all about money.  Furthermore, he has ZERO incentive to argue anyone about bitcoin specifically - that would just give free publicity to the currency, and further discredit his poorly researched blatherings on the topic (yep, even Nobels can be lazy).

Maybe ... maybe you are a good follower not a leader. Just a thought.

Maybe it's the messenger and not the message.  Just a thought. 

I've spent over 15 years cajoling, arguing, educating civilised debates, blah-blah ... it doesn't work, they do not listen to truth and ration until their food source and livelihoods are threatened.. They had ample chances, the information is all out their now, it is their choice. It is time for action.

Willfull ignorance of the laws, of nature is not an excuse.

You will have to explain to me what this this. A social libertarian, that I would understand. But a libertarian Karl Marx? Well I want to learn...

That's a very narrow, arrogant and prejudice view.  Not everyone can be as smart as you.  Not everyone has been exposed to the real truths.  So to dismiss people as willing sheep, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity and the systems of control in which they live.  It is our responsibility to educate people and the sooner those who think like you get that and stop pretending this is still some "geeky gamers, mom basement hobby", the better off we'll all be.  

Bottomline, If you're thinking were true, Bitcoin wouldn't be growing.  But it's not true and you're hurting the cause with this hateful and dismissive rhetoric, not helping it.  Please stop it.  These are your brothers and sisters, you friends and neighbors for crying out loud.  Give them a chance to hear the truth and choose before you write them off as beyond being able to see because once upon a time, you were just like them. 

No, I think this is the basis for your wrong thinking. The populace are quite happy to follow these charlatans and idiots to where-ever, they promise the earth and deliver nothing and have done so for decades.

Expending energy trying to convince the hoople heads that their snake-oil salesman leadership is taking them over the cliff is an exercise in futility that you can waste lifetimes of energy upon and achieve nothing.

Your energy is better spent pushing from behind the whole corrupted system over the edge ... and getting ready at the bottom waiting to pick up the pieces and offer the new solution, it will be as easy as sliding a knife through butter at that point.

You can PR as much as you wish but until the sheeple are ready for your message they just bleat and follow the slops wagon to the shearing shed.

It's not about convincing them (the Paul Krugman's) that it's truth, it's about being able to have the intelligent debate on the same stage.  It's about the people listening to that debate and them deciding, who they believe. It's certainly not about turning your "rivals" into supporters, although that would be a nice bonus.

Again this is why I think professional PR is needed.  So you have intelligent, well versed campaigns to fight back against the rhetoric.  It's just like a lawyer.  He doesn't defend himself in court, he hires another attorney so the emotion can be removed from the equation (which all of us have toward Bitcoin) and the clear, concise talking points can be delivered in opposition of such half-truths, misguidedness and outright lies.  Dismissing the power and influence these people have over the populous again in my opinion, is naive at best.


EDIT:  And don't get me wrong, I understand why people laugh and I'm not saying it's not justified, it's just not productive in the overall conversation. 

sweet music ... ring of truth

Many have tried but discussion is a blatant waste of time, perhaps the worst one. Have you seen the people on the show? Have you heard Paul "animal spirits" Krugman talking? These people are not by the slightest interested in the truth, or even in consistency, or even in discussion.

You do not argue with these people. They are NOT going to listen and they are NOT going to pay attention to your arguments, even if you have a paper signed by God himself to be the absolute truth embedded in the nature of our universe. They have killed in themselves their ability to pursue truth in order to achieve certain power positions.

So you do NOT waste energy by debating them: doing so will cause them to raise their voices and interrupt you, and not let you talk.
What you do is quietly doing and proving to the world that what you do actually works well.




Oh, and keep in mind the reasons why we laugh away and disregard these people: their "arguments" are not well-shaped but perhaps erroneous products of a certain school of thought. No, they are bottom-up designed in order to influence the actions of people. Punchlines. Use the words "antisocial", "society", "together", just like you can use words like "fatherland", "God", "freedom and democracy" and you might push certain emotional buttons.
As soon you realize that these arguments are not thoughts but instruments that have little to do with truth, you will understand why lies persist in politics.

those people aren't socialists they were just saying what the people who pay them told them to say. really you have to be able to control the money supply? why? why is it important to be able to decrease the value of people's money? if the value increases then you can simply buy more with the dollar you have. it's like saying we can't increase wages because then the price of goods will rise. it doesn't matter if the price increases because people will have more money to be able to pay for it. nearly all of the profits go to the CEO anyway. they could create the same things for alot less and pay the workers more if the CEO was simply paid $30 million instead of $60 million.

there is such thing as a libertarian socialist, which is what i am. they are not mutually exclusive.

"Paying tax binds us as a society"...yeah, that's the way to win the people over /:
Media rhetoric and propaganda at its best.

If you stop for a second and take note of the old fart in the glasses, he says Bitcon purposfully for a few times initially to try belittle the subject and plant that idea into the minds of the viewers. The word con is now associated with Bitcoin. Sneaky sneaky.

Very well said.  /thumbsup

I am a conservative/libertarian, or at least I believe I am. If I take the time to write down all the decisions and reactions in one day of my life and put a political label on each of them, I would most likely realized I moved from very liberals to very conservatives thoughts all the time. This is Nature and how we can survive and adapt.
Only professional career politicians tell you to never be free from reelecting them forever.

If you don't doubt you political party long time vision after fully understanding what bitcoin represents, no matter your political color, then you don't "get bitcoin"...

NZ & Australia: Beautiful lands. Too bad about their political visions regarding banks and their centralized vision of society.
As soon as they quoted "anti social network" I knew who their God were.

Coinseeker is correct and I also didn't see any good rebuttals to the general points these guys were making in this thread. Yes he can't pronounce Bitcoin, haha, let's point and laugh. What a loser, etc etc.

Here we see two major divides: generational and geographical. Young (probably American) libertarians vs older Kiwi socialists.

The basic arguments here are, whether you like it or not, very mainstream. When there is mainstream conventional wisdom you can't achieve anything by just insulting people who believe it because you end up just insulting everyone and the world tunes you out as noise. And then they ban your ass and you either end up giving up on what you were doing, or in court and possibly jail. Successfully overthrowing democratically elected governments by sending Bitcoins around - not going to happen.

If you'd like other people to open their minds to your point of view, you have to do the same for them and understand where they're coming from. New Zealand does not have an oppressive government, not even close. These people see their government as a provider of basic, important services. They see it as their friend and a basic part of the social contract, that everyone chips in for services that benefit everyone. They have also picked up on the anarchist anti-state rhetoric that sometimes accompanies Bitcoin and have concluded that they don't want anything to do with it, because they got the (wrong) impression that government and Bitcoin are incompatible. That's unfortunate. Bitcoin is useful only insomuch as people accept it. A "currency of the resistance" isn't even useful to the resistance.

I think this sort of thing will go away with time as people learn that whilst Bitcoin might reconfigure the status quo somewhat, it isn't a magical shield against all taxation and it doesn't make much different to criminality ("terrorist financing" is a canard because terrorism is so cheap). It'll then seem less scary to the mainstream.

And that's all I was saying.  i may have failed in explaining that properly.  Maybe frustration of just pure negative ignorance that's so common on forums but nevertheless...this is what I'm talking about.  We can absolutely turn the tide with intelligent and rational arguments.  The benefits of Bitcoin are a no brainer to anyone who truly understands it.  We just have to get them to understand.  Dismissal is not a successful, longterm strategy.  Although there are some and will be more who absolutely will need to be dismissed as it would do more harm than good, to deal with them.

Hmm...that's fair.  Ok, I can totally see that view point.  

Sorry, I had added some comments while you were typing this, so I'm sure you missed the updates.  More focused on the wild ride on the markets ATM.

Maybe you're right, because I'm not understanding this thinking.  "The more ridiculous their arguments the less work for us!"  Can you elaborate on this for me, unless you're talking ease of debunking these arguments at which point, I agree.

And I don't have a goal in terms of percent.  I believe that we need businesses to accept Bitcoin.  But business is up against public opinion.  They can't align themselves with something that seems corrupt, questionably legal, shady, etc.  Not say it is, but talking about perception.

For example:  Just look at the difficulty Bitcoin100 is having just getting charities on board.