Topic: Plagiarism apologist #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized dishonesty in principle - page 2. (Read 867 times)

What is stopping you from just claiming an opinion is "directly, unavoidably, substantially" untrustworthy frivolously? These are all extremely subjective things by its very nature. The ambiguity in punishing opinions and speech of any kind is inevitably a back door for abuse. All one has to do is claim that the speech/opinion is XYZ and therefore it is justifiable to use the trust system against it.

All this will result in is the perpetual conflict the trust system has seen in the past as people frivolously accuse others of being liars or supporting scams by offering defense of people they believe to be scammers. Regarding your comment about Lauda being Craig Wright, I have never once made such an accusation, so I am not sure what you are jibbering about.

No; check post history.


Moreover, shame has been turned on its head:  If you shame bad people, you will be shamed.  I observed that “cryptohunter” did this to The Pharmacist.  You yourself should prepare to be shamed for what I just quoted, not despite, but because of it being a simple, lucid observation about the world in which we live.

The trick only works, because the people who should have the moral high ground are ipso facto those who are capable of feeling ashamed.  The ones shaming them are shameless, and highly manipulative.  You did not actually say anything wrong; but if you are sneered at and jeered at with unlimited hostility in a way that plays on your emotions, guilts you for being unsympathetic, slaps you with meaningless labels, impugns your motivations in a hundred ways, etc., then it could get to you.  Conveniently, the shameless will not feel ashamed of doing this to you.

Compare what “cryptohunter” did in the linked thread:  He portrayed a bingo game that ridiculed plagiarists’ flimsy excuses as if it were some sort of cruel injustice against poor, desperate people who are just so... so... needy.  Objectively, it is just the brand of dangerous stupidity that may persuade people who don’t think it through.  Subjectively, in my case, this peculiarly outraged me because I have experience with being poor.  As in, “imperiled for my short-term physical survival due to a decidedly painful lack of food and shelter” level poor.  Poor enough to be able to attest the maddening effects of chronic hunger (and resulting long-term detriment to the body).  I did not scam people, or spew plagiarized posts on the Bitcoin Forum.  “cryptohunter” implies that if I had, others should have been somehow sympathetic; and that offends me by degrading my dignity.  Surely, in today’s society, in the Year 2020, I am entitled to me-centred outrage based on being personally offended!


True enough.  But, (a) “cryptohunter” did not merely blame crime on poverty.  He went beyond that in ways that showed a high tolerance for dishonesty, even a sympathy for it, per what I stated above.  (b) One must start somewhere; otherwise, nothing will ever change.

---

I expounded on this.  Was it TL;DR for you?

---

Stop trying to prove that Lauda is Craig Wright.  It is defamatory.

I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here...



Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition? Is not the very act of making such a declaration excusing the use of the trust system to punish opinions you do not agree with? How exactly do you prevent this from degrading into full on abuse in a system that allows for such massive ambiguity? What stops people from simply declaring opinions they don't agree with as being unacceptable thereby supposedly justifying the use of the trust system to silence them?

You came back for cryptohunter?

OK, sure.. One more reason to tag CH.. For being an apologist of plagiarizers..

I think plagiarizers, scammers, and many types of criminals should be shamed too, but you know, it seems that about half the world out there are apologists for criminals and blame it on poverty, just about every time a black guy gets shot by the cops..  
I'm glad you distrust these people.. I do too to an extent.. Poor judgement.. But I don't think I'd hand out negative ratings to every user who has ever blamed crime on poverty, or I bet you could go to the P&S section and gather a sizable list..

I did not intend for the following to be a post.  It started as a simple observation on the trustworthiness of a user, then grew into an opinion that I think should set precedent in what is effectually the Bitcoin Forum’s common law on use the trust system.

In that light, I must emphasize the narrowness this opinion.  I think it would be a massively destructive abuse of the trust system to use it to, say, punish people for their political opinions.  The trust system is in effect an economic weapon; and the use of economic weapons to enforce groupthink is odious.  E.g., nowadays, there are places where you can be fired from your job for using the correct pronouns, or making simple, factual observations about reality—let alone expressing the “wrong” opinions.

In the general case, if I see on this forum an opinion that I think is wrong, even horribly wrong, my reaction is either to say why it’s wrong, or to ignore it as garbage.  I may sometimes personally avoid transacting with people I disagree with, in the manner of a quiet boycott; but there are even many people on this forum whose opinions I find disagreeable, with whom I would have no qualms about transacting financially.

By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it.  Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed?  I say, yes!

It would be interesting to see some intelligent analysis and critique.  I admit it’s arguable whether this is a good idea, for I am walking a thin, dangerous line.  However, I sincerely, unarguably, and unalterably distrust this user, for the reasons stated below; and what is the purpose of the trust system, if it is not for expressing a well-founded distrust so as to warn others?

[The following is what I intended to use as a trust comment.  It invoked an error:  “Comment too long.  Create a topic and link to it instead.  A draft was saved.”  In my actual trust rating, it will be replaced with a link to this topic.]

Quote from: nullius

In the linked post and subsequent posts on the same thread, #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized and morally minimized plagiarism.  He did this with no apparent direct self-interest; judging only by the thread on its face, he appears to have done this to protect plagiarists from shame *as a matter of principle*.  #92110 admits that plagiarists “need to be banned”, but vehemently objects to shaming them with ridicule.  For the purpose of judging trustworthiness, all this only makes him worse.

A.

Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas.  It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.

Thus, anybody who defends, excuses, or morally minimizes plagiarism in principle is *ipso facto* untrustworthy.  Anybody who considers plagiarism not shameful is definitely untrustworthy.  And this applies a thousandfold to anybody who attempts to manipulate the emotional sympathies of the public to stop social shaming of plagiarists:  It is no less than an attempt to protect fraudulent criminals by depriving a community of a needed weapon, i.e. social shame, that the community uses to defend itself.

Perhaps worst of all in concept, this last is hereby seen done via a values inversion that shames the people who are shaming dishonest, fraudulent plagiarists.  Further down the thread, #92110 even has the audacity to issue a preachy, self-righteous tirade disparaging and ridiculing the “moral compass” and “critical decision making capabilities” of The Pharmacist:  The latter has no sympathy for poor, desperate plagiarists who are being deterred by public shaming from the forum and its financial opportunities.  Evidently, he expects for The Pharmacist to be ashamed.  (I do not hereby reach #92110’s other arguments, other to note that they are are completely wrong.)

B.

There are instances in which a disagreeable opinion is just that, and reveals little or nothing about the trustworthiness of the holder of that opinion for financial transactions.  I absolutely would not issue a negative trust rating in those instances.  This is not one of those instances.  The linked post is tantamount to a self-righteous declaration that “even though [scammers] need to be banned I can't say I have no idea why they do this”, and they shouldn’t be shamed for ripping people off, especially if they are “poor as fuck” or have “semi legit reasons” (!).

Indeed, substitute the word “scammer” for “plagiarist” in the context of the linked discussion, and you will immediately see why I have chosen to tag #92110 as untrustworthy for financial transactions.  I would not trust a plagiarism apologist with even a millisatoshi.

Coda

I see that #92110 is accused by others of abusing alts.  If/when I have time for the needed investigation, I should issue a negative trust rating to any alts that I independently verify actually belong to the same person(s).  It’s low on my priorities list, but I hope that I will get to it eventually.

Archival link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215600/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084319.0;all