Topic: Bitcoin Crashes Nearly 25% - Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider (Read 3780 times)

When Maria Bartiromo starts saying that bitcoin is a new paradigm and good investment, THAT is when you know we've reached maximum market penetration and no further large price-gains are likely.

All this silly drama will get even more people interested in btc.

I'm White.  Many believe that most people that molest children are White.  Haha that's the worst stereotype there is, just about.  Asians are smart, Blacks got big dicks and Jews are good with money, boo fucking hoo.

Everyone is just too sensitive.  Stereotyping, much like profiling, is fine as long as it's not the sole criteria used to make conclusions.

Put me in a room with a diddled kid and 10 other non-White guys, I'm likely the first suspected.  As long as I'm not judged and sentenced with nothing else to go on, I'm OK with that, Whites may actually do kids more often than other races in which case I'm the smart first bet in this hypothetical.

Personally I think people use stereotyping to bolster or rationalize their discriminatory thoughts.  Strip away stereotyping and I doubt discrimination goes away too.  It's not a stereotype's fault many are too stupid to realize not all in a group will fit their stereotype.

I probably fit a lot of the stereotypes attributed to bitcoin users, but not all of them.  I still wouldn't be outraged that someone thought it likely I worked as an IT professional considering my interest in bitcoin.

I'm more leaning towards "biological imperative". As much as some people might preach equality and even believe in it, we don't have it and never will or can for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that we are not equal. Life wants to propagate, and for humans that requires someone to take care of the kids and keeping the home livable. And millions of years of evolution is telling us that women are better at that than men, while men are better at bringing home the meat.

If anything, it's modern society that is absurd, not the people acting on ancient instincts. On a side note because someone is sure to bring it up, "fair" doesn't exist in nature.

Eh, see, the problem with that is that even in such a case, when Alice invokes a stereotype when talking about Betty, someone overhearing the comment would naturally conclude that Alice believes in the stereotype. If Cathy - an actual bigot - overhears, it'll reinforce her impression that her opinions are normal and socially acceptable. If Dana - who is in the group covered by the stereotype - overhears, it'll reinforce the feeling of isolation and dehumanization which entrenched stereotypes create.

The problem with applying these sorts of heuristics to humans is that they get in under the skin, like an ingrown thorn, at which point they stop being rational and become very difficult to turn off when you encounter an "exception" in real life. Sure, you can say (e.g.) that women aren't as good in STEM, but if you internalize that heuristic, you'll rate women lower than men with identical CVs, even though you have enough data to make the heuristic unnecessary and obviously bogus. (This happens, by the way, and it's been shown to happen even when the people covered by the stereotype are doing the grading, meaning that the effect is subconscious and culturally pervasive.) And even if it wasn't for that, and even if the heuristic is accurate, the effect of applying a heuristic which typecasts with a broad brush is that society actively impedes the "exceptions", refusing to take their exceptional natures seriously and pushing them towards roles for which they're ill-suited. That might be acceptable error when you're dealing with heuristics on things, but when you do it to people, it's a moral issue that can't be handwaved by accuracy on the average.

Getting off this derail and back to the article, IMO it's just the usual growing pains and schadenfreude. Not even that notable, given the good coverage Bitcoin has been receiving in other channels lately.

To be fair, Weisenthal did fit the profile 100%.

Listen, if you evoke a stereotype to discriminate against someone before they've done anything, then thats just being close-minded & stupid.

But after somebody has already acted like an idiot, feel free to evoke as many stereotypes as you like to explain that idiocy for all I care.

Rather, because generalizations are generally true.

Seemingly complex systems can often be simplified to a few key things. Take bitcoin. Limited resource with rising demand equals rising price, therefore buy and hold. Extremely simple once you identify the key aspects to focus on. It's the same with any group of people, they all have common traits that, as a group, define them. Exceptions are just that and anecdotes are useless in statistics. Morgan Freeman is not representative of black people, much as I might wish he were.

Yeah. Making the world simple for people that can't handle complexity.

 

Seems like a nice young man who doesn't fit just as well in the same joke as a sterotype.
I think that we should end this subject, because many people will get emotional and then I will be probably blamed for them being emotional. It's the weird world we're living in and I have learned that it is better to deal with it in peace.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. For example, speaking as a danish beer swilling grogtard, the stereotype that danes are beer swilling grogtards is absolutely true! Some people just have difficulty admitting their own character.

Take the movie 300. Opening scene, dude tossing infants over a cliff to splatter on the jagged rocks below. They actually did that, yet their contemporary descendants were international-incident-pissed. Then compare it to the reaction when the 13th warrior displayed vikings as nasty, unwashed, beer swilling grogtards who burned slaves alive at funerals. Nobody cared because it was true and we are fine with that.

-isms are just a matter of character, or sometimes lack thereof.

What about a Goldstein?

http://www.cryptocurrencycon.com/speakers/michael-goldstein/

Why is that?

You might find people sympathetic to your viewpoint on Stormfront.



EDIT: This guy is a troll. Ignored.

It is hard to understand how can you see racial bashing in my text. I was implying at cultural, social and religious backgrounds. Races are an biological or an anthropological mater and were not discussed about.
But you are right, I should correct myself and accept that a lot of people are confident that some subjects are more sacred then others, and should receive special treatment. I apologize that I spoke my mind and in the future, I'll try to filter my thoughts according to your personal wishes. I am sorry.

Keep your sterotypes to yourself. If you want to start bashing races you can go to Storm Front for that.

Best they remain unaware of you.

That is a question for everyone to decide for themselves. Everyone are free to make their own choices, even if they decide to be the stereotypes of their background

Because you want to live your own life?

Also, "One can laugh about anything, but not with everyone".

Why break free if dicks like are going to prejudge you anyway?

I am free-minded towards anyone, by discarding their background while valuating their character as a whole. But still, there are certain stereotypes for certain backgrounds and these types would not be considered stereotypes if they weren't often seen by others. Everyone can break free from their background and what is expected from them, not everyone choose to break free though.
It is just sad that we can joke freely about some stereotypes, but with others, people freeze and find you inappropriate