It is absolutely stunning to see self righteous anger these self styled progressives can build up. I get the opportunity to watch this every day living in western Washington. Interestingly the author claims that even though they have been wronged by the traditional banking system, the "unprivileged" would not want to to try a decentralized form of financial services. Interestingly she leaves out the fact that government meddling in the traditional financial sector, promoting the increase in subprime lending precipitated a major financial crisis. This crisis disproportionately affected those of lower means. Instead she rails against things like payday lenders as if they are somehow comparable to bitcoin. She also conveniently leaves out the presence of bitcoin communities in China and South America. Last time I checked, there were not a bunch of non Hispanic white men in these areas. Including individuals in these communities would unfortunately skew her numbers making her case for bitcoin as racist tool narrative incorrect. All in all, the author is sadly ignorant about bitcoin. Our banks touched off a global financial crisis and they still exist. One bitcoin related service collapses and the author is about to piss herself with glee because thinks it proves her most hated demographic wrong, the white male.
Ultimately, selling victim hood is a big business. In a country such as the US, with a large diverse population, you prop up a group like white males, as some omnipresent boggie man, and then market literature promoting said stance to the rest of people. I can't believe it hasn't been noted yet, but Think Progress is run by the center for american progress action fund. This is the political funding arm of billionaire banker George Soros. If I had to speculate, I would say this is simply a hit piece by a author who knows who pays for her dinner.
Topic: Think Progress believes Bitcoin is racist... - page 2. (Read 4296 times)
To truly find freedom, peace and a lasting change in humanity, we must relinquish our greed based society for one structured around love and sharing. The greatest advancements in human history await the day we act as the family that we are, that is when we will truly reap the rewards of what we are seeking.
Best part of this thread.
The very use of phrases such as "rich whiteys' and "women and people of color" interjects the racial divide right into the middle of the conversation.
If I reversed the comments, and wrote an article about "The long heritage of outstanding Caucasians in our community" WITH "Those black ho's" and "Those black homie street gangsters" how would you like that?
If I reversed the comments, and wrote an article about "The long heritage of outstanding Caucasians in our community" WITH "Those black ho's" and "Those black homie street gangsters" how would you like that?
You'll notice of course that she didn't use the phrase "rich whiteys", that was me, for humorous effect
.No, she doesn't have a point there, except at the top of her dunce cap. I hardly have a "good understanding" of finance, computing, and cryptography.
While it's true you don't need an understanding in order to use it, surely in order to trust it enough to benefit you need to understand the underlying concepts? Or trust some-one who does. You also need some disposable income in order to invest (sure you can buy $10 of btc but then it's not going to affect you that much even if it goes to $100k/btc). I think the key point here is that bitcoin (like all new technologies, and pretty much all major economic opportunities to be honest) will be best exploited by people who are relatively wealthy and educated, and unfortunately for whatever reasons, white men have better access to wealth and education (in the US at least) than do women or ethnic minorities.
Even if you assume that the US is a completely post-racist, post-sexist society (doubtful) then the racial element of this would still take time to change, because the US has some of the worst inequality and social mobility in the world. The children of the rich get the best education, the best healthcare, early financial support, free mentoring from (presumably) already successful people, and many other advantages (often including direct nepotism), all of which ensure that the ability to earn wealth is just as heritable as wealth itself. And since the rich people were all white when black people gained full legal equality, they mostly still are now. The black children today suffer from the oppressions of last century, even if no-one is actively discriminating against them today (and many still are - see e.g. unequal sentencing, police racial profiling).
I don't even know where to start. The fundamentals of bitcoin are that it can be used on smart phones, and that it can be used in places far away, like Africa, and that it is useable for small transactions.
Thus it is the most powerful tool for economic and hence social justice ever invented.
And by the way, the lecturing on racial constructs wears thin. Unless you've walked around some cities in Africa a bit...well let's put it this way.....even average blacks from the US doing just that are "rich whiteys".
Every once in a while — most recently with the collapse of online exchange site Mt Gox — the world starts paying attention to Bitcoin, the hacker-project-cum-digital-currency that has garnered the love of a certain subset of people on the internet. Who are those people? According to an online poll from Simulacrum, the average user is a 32.1-year-old libertarian male. By users’ accounts, those men are mostly white.
Breaking that down, about 95 percent of Bitcoin users are men, about 61 percent say they’re not religious, and about 44 percent describe themselves as “libertarian / anarcho-capitalist.” On the last point, the political ideology of Bitcoin users is evident from the fact that the whole idea behind Bitcoin is that it segregates economic markets and currency from a country’s government. Bitcoin aims to be a universal currency, connecting people “peer-to-peer” instead of through set institutions. It wants to replace our current economic system and practices in their entirety — changing the way we buy goods and distribute money. The libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists as the case may be, don’t trust the government to handle their money. They’re the same people who want to “end the fed.”
Those libertarian tendencies are generally held by white men. “Compared to the general population,” an American Values survey reported last year, “libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young.” Specifically, 94 percent are white, and 68 percent are men.
Why does Bitcoin specifically have this demographic makeup? Well, there’s a fair amount of privilege built directly into the currency: In order to buy the sometimes wildly expensive currency, Bitcoin users need to be wealthy. And they can afford to put their wealth into a currency that isn’t widely accepted or even recognized. Plus, they move easily through the financial and digital space — the process of “mining” bitcoins demands it; it is all about knowing coding and decryption and how to use an exchange. The sum total of these things — advanced knowledge of computer science, wealth — are also markings of the young, white male.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/27/3341411/bitcoin-privilege/
Accurate re-write
Libertarians have above average skill and honest income, so Bitcoin is currently attracting them in large numbers.
ps. We appear to frighten the females
But the writer does have a point: If your race/ethnicity/whatever were screwed from generations of free stuff handed to you in US dollars, why would you get involved in an alternative currency?
Every once in a while — most recently with the collapse of online exchange site Mt Gox — the world starts paying attention to Bitcoin, the hacker-project-cum-digital-currency that has garnered the love of a certain subset of people on the internet. Who are those people? According to an online poll from Simulacrum, the average user is a 32.1-year-old libertarian male. By users’ accounts, those men are mostly white.
Breaking that down, about 95 percent of Bitcoin users are men, about 61 percent say they’re not religious, and about 44 percent describe themselves as “libertarian / anarcho-capitalist.” On the last point, the political ideology of Bitcoin users is evident from the fact that the whole idea behind Bitcoin is that it segregates economic markets and currency from a country’s government. Bitcoin aims to be a universal currency, connecting people “peer-to-peer” instead of through set institutions. It wants to replace our current economic system and practices in their entirety — changing the way we buy goods and distribute money. The libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists as the case may be, don’t trust the government to handle their money. They’re the same people who want to “end the fed.”
Those libertarian tendencies are generally held by white men. “Compared to the general population,” an American Values survey reported last year, “libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young.” Specifically, 94 percent are white, and 68 percent are men.
Why does Bitcoin specifically have this demographic makeup? Well, there’s a fair amount of privilege built directly into the currency: In order to buy the sometimes wildly expensive currency, Bitcoin users need to be wealthy. And they can afford to put their wealth into a currency that isn’t widely accepted or even recognized. Plus, they move easily through the financial and digital space — the process of “mining” bitcoins demands it; it is all about knowing coding and decryption and how to use an exchange. The sum total of these things — advanced knowledge of computer science, wealth — are also markings of the young, white male.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/27/3341411/bitcoin-privilege/
Accurate re-write
Libertarians have above average skill and honest income, so Bitcoin is currently attracting them in large numbers.
ps. We appear to frighten the females
No. Not the females. Just "her"
Every once in a while — most recently with the collapse of online exchange site Mt Gox — the world starts paying attention to Bitcoin, the hacker-project-cum-digital-currency that has garnered the love of a certain subset of people on the internet. Who are those people? According to an online poll from Simulacrum, the average user is a 32.1-year-old libertarian male. By users’ accounts, those men are mostly white.
Breaking that down, about 95 percent of Bitcoin users are men, about 61 percent say they’re not religious, and about 44 percent describe themselves as “libertarian / anarcho-capitalist.” On the last point, the political ideology of Bitcoin users is evident from the fact that the whole idea behind Bitcoin is that it segregates economic markets and currency from a country’s government. Bitcoin aims to be a universal currency, connecting people “peer-to-peer” instead of through set institutions. It wants to replace our current economic system and practices in their entirety — changing the way we buy goods and distribute money. The libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists as the case may be, don’t trust the government to handle their money. They’re the same people who want to “end the fed.”
Those libertarian tendencies are generally held by white men. “Compared to the general population,” an American Values survey reported last year, “libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young.” Specifically, 94 percent are white, and 68 percent are men.
Why does Bitcoin specifically have this demographic makeup? Well, there’s a fair amount of privilege built directly into the currency: In order to buy the sometimes wildly expensive currency, Bitcoin users need to be wealthy. And they can afford to put their wealth into a currency that isn’t widely accepted or even recognized. Plus, they move easily through the financial and digital space — the process of “mining” bitcoins demands it; it is all about knowing coding and decryption and how to use an exchange. The sum total of these things — advanced knowledge of computer science, wealth — are also markings of the young, white male.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/27/3341411/bitcoin-privilege/
Accurate re-write
Libertarians have above average skill and honest income, so Bitcoin is currently attracting them in large numbers.
ps. We appear to frighten the females
Yeah...no. Bitcoin is used by computer nerds. Computer nerds are mostly while males. Here, they just happen to be libertarian computer nerds, or computer nerds whom Bitcoin converted to libertarianism (like me). I think it's computer nerds who are racist 
Most computer's skin color is white or of a beige descent. Apple tried to hide this tragic statistic in the past with their Black Macbook and now their latest Mini Babel's Tower of Perdition called the Mac Pro. But people like the lady from ThinkProgress won't be fooled again! Oh Noes!
Nerd's tools are racist.
Yeah...no. Bitcoin is used by computer nerds. Computer nerds are mostly while males. Here, they just happen to be libertarian computer nerds, or computer nerds whom Bitcoin converted to libertarianism (like me). I think it's computer nerds who are racist
So maybe this just falls into the general category of "yet another reporter gets bitcoin wronger than wrong".
This is what I would say.Do you think it's daft because she's being racist/stereotypical only towards whites? Because the interesting thing is she says the exact opposite of people of colour and of women, claiming that they want small government and need support to be financially successful.
Her assertions "[bitcoin is for rich whiteys]" and "women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government" are clearly meant to be understood (rightly or wrongly) in the context of statistical points made earlier in the article, so she's not claiming "all whiteys" or "all women or PoC" and hence not being stereotypical. Since she's also not accusing anyone else of racism I really don't get what the fuss is about .Hey "willy" I like that!
You can have it for free 
What she is doing is pointing out that there's a barrier to entry to bitcoin unless you have a large disposable income (she is wrong here) and a good understanding of finance, computing and cryptography (she has a point here)
No, she doesn't have a point there, except at the top of her dunce cap. I hardly have a "good understanding" of finance, computing, and cryptography.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
Nope. She is not stupid. She is racist.
She holds extreme anti-white views, which is clear from her previous articles.
They should repeat the survey in China
Bam! There it is. They seem to only have surveyed Americans. Using their logic I have determined the following facts about BTC:
1. Most bitcoin users are overweight.
2. All bitcoin users live in capitalist democracies.
3. Virtually all bitcoin users speak English.
....
Her assertions "[bitcoin is for rich whiteys]" and "women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government" are clearly meant to be understood (rightly or wrongly) in the context of statistical points made earlier in the article, so she's not claiming "all whiteys" or "all women or PoC" and hence not being stereotypical. Since she's also not accusing anyone else of racism I really don't get what the fuss is about....
Her assertions "[bitcoin is for rich whiteys]" and "women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government" are clearly meant to be understood (rightly or wrongly) in the context of statistical points made earlier in the article, so she's not claiming "all whiteys" or "all women or PoC" and hence not being stereotypical. Since she's also not accusing anyone else of racism I really don't get what the fuss is about
....No, this is incorrect. Stereotyping does not require explicitly stating the "all", whether in a pejorative or positive use. The "all" is readily implied.
The very use of phrases such as "rich whiteys' and "women and people of color" interjects the racial divide right into the middle of the conversation.
So I can't see how it is anything BUT a racist commentary.
If I reversed the comments, and wrote an article about "The long heritage of outstanding Caucasians in our community" WITH "Those black ho's" and "Those black homie street gangsters" how would you like that?
Do you think it's daft because she's being racist/stereotypical only towards whites? Because the interesting thing is she says the exact opposite of people of colour and of women, claiming that they want small government and need support to be financially successful.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
So maybe this just falls into the general category of "yet another reporter gets bitcoin wronger than wrong". But I so like the other interpretations....they are so much more, well, fun....Quote
women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government. They are the ones who need more institutional support, not less, to be financially successful.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
and, like I was wanting to be in the Fun Percent....
Do you think it's daft because she's being racist/stereotypical only towards whites? Because the interesting thing is she says the exact opposite of people of colour and of women, claiming that they want small government and need support to be financially successful.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
Quote
women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government. They are the ones who need more institutional support, not less, to be financially successful.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
She has a condescending personality to say the least.
Still, I don't think it takes a genius to realize the relationship between skin pigment and life-after-birth has very little to do with nature, aside from the determining factor as to what that pigment will be; in the very least, it's not as extreme as this lady is trying to make it. This article is written by a person who sticks with her own "kind", for I can see no reason why a person who actually interacts with a diverse group would ignore all empirical evidence to the contrary and instead opt for stereotypical fantasies; in other words, it's always the closed-minded racist who is first to project her racism upon others.
I think it's a bit daft to call the author of the article racist, especially since she's not accusing bitcoin or the bitcoin community of racism either.
What she is doing is pointing out that there's a barrier to entry to bitcoin unless you have a large disposable income (she is wrong here) and a good understanding of finance, computing and cryptography (she has a point here), and that these privileges are most common among younger white men, especially in the US.
She certainly isn't implying that there's anything natural about that inequality.
Do you think it's daft because she's being racist/stereotypical only towards whites? Because the interesting thing is she says the exact opposite of people of colour and of women, claiming that they want small government and need support to be financially successful.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
Quote
women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government. They are the ones who need more institutional support, not less, to be financially successful.
If she's not a racist or stereotypical, she is pretty stupid.
The "Nature Versus Nurture" debate is still hot
it's both, nature and nurture, I sometimes don't understand why this isn't obvious to some people.
Well obviously it's both, but you seem to have missed the point - the debate is over what proportion of our personality, skills and other traits can be attributed to our genes, and which to our environment. As willy says, the debate is still hot - the question is very difficult to study because we don't (yet
) have the ability to fork universes and must rely on studying e.g. identical twins.Hey "willy" I like that!
Then ask Think Progress to donate their members assets to the deprived groups.
The "Nature Versus Nurture" debate is still hot
it's both, nature and nurture, I sometimes don't understand why this isn't obvious to some people.
Well obviously it's both, but you seem to have missed the point - the debate is over what proportion of our personality, skills and other traits can be attributed to our genes, and which to our environment. As willy says, the debate is still hot - the question is very difficult to study because we don't (yet
) have the ability to fork universes and must rely on studying e.g. identical twins. Jump to: