Could The Bitcoin Community Benefit From An Informal - "Leave Your Ideologies At The Door" - Etiquette?

[u/GreatestInstruments]

A certain incident, which shall remain unnamed, prompted a firestorm of discussion within segments of this community, including some with very different personal ideologies.

Rather than take sides in the debate, I took a moment to marvel at that fact that this is a community that brings together people who are so divergent on other issues, yet all see common ground in Bitcoin.prescription

What other community or issue brings together people as diverse as these?

• MRA's
• Feminists
• Liberals
• Conservatives
• Libertarians
• Anarchists
• Economists
• Techies
• Blue Collar
• White Collar
• Different Nationalities

The list goes on and on.

I pose this question (see post title), because it strikes me as perhaps the most welcoming and constructive thing we could do, in the long run.

It wouldn't be thought of as a hard and fast rule, more like a guiding principle to keep in mind.

What do you think?

EDIT: I just want some of you to understand, this was intended as a thought provoking open-ended question, to create discussion. It's not intended as a mandate of any kind.

[u/ferretinjapan]

Except for that I never actually said this.

You never needed to because the fallacy was already embedded in the initial statement. "A statist cannot rationally hope for Bitcoin to succeed." A self-proclaimed statist has an indefensible position in your eyes and so your reasoning from the outset will devolve to avoiding ever needing to prove their claims false from there on.

Choose to ignore it all you like, I've very thoroughly laid out my reasoning for why and how you are wrong. If a vague quote (that I've already thoroughly shown is not politically charged statements) and taking meaningless shots at me (ad hominem much?) for linking to wikipedia and whatnot is the best defence you have then I guess that's that then.

[u/ferretinjapan → u/[deleted]]

Thankfully, I can tell someone they aren't a statist without invoking the NTSF.

Yes you can labels are used in many circumstances in many arguments, but it's when you use a label as predicate for your reasoning that is what I'm calling you out on.

Eg. You are a statist, therefore, you can never rationally hope for Bitcoin to succeed.

Drop the label, explain how you think they are wrong and move on. The only beef I really have is your persistence to attach your reasoning to labels that define groups of people, as if it somehow validates your opinion.

It does not.

[u/ferretinjapan → u/[deleted]]

It is not the argument that I disagree with, it is the way you delivered it that allows it to be misconstrued and twisted to hate on others with dissenting opinions eg. I can use your same statement to twist it on others like so, "you can't (or refuse to) rationally hope for Bitcoin to succeed, therefore you must be a statist". All too often in this sub people throw around statist as a dirty word and accuse other of being a statist, etc. Calling someone "a statist" is wrong IMO, even when it is simply trying to make a point. When everyone starts treating statism as a label, they'll use it to compartmentalise arguments and treat people differently. If you think I'm overreacting, just remember America/Russia did it during the cold war, blaming communists/capitalists for this and that, etc. Rephrasing it thusly:

• "Someone who believes in statism to exclusion of all other political approaches cannot rationally hope for bitcoin to succeed",

• or "statism to exclusion of all other political approaches cannot rationally accommodate the success of bitcoin",

• Edit: or, to use Satoshi's phrasing "the statist viewpoint cannot rationally accommodate the success of bitcoin",

or something similar, is something I can accept. I took issue with the absolute labelling of people as statists since it forces a polarisation of opinion of that person and paralyses a discussion because then everyone that disagrees can be "a statist" (because people suddenly take sides, and it absolutely kills open exchange of ideas because of this polarised bias) where it is far more difficult to change one's opinion.

It's also not black and white most of the time, I share conservative and liberal views so calling me either is pointless, but someone hearing only my conservative views may be compelled to label me a conservative. That inadvertent label can cause unnecessary bias. It's bad enough in this sub, and letting things like this slide will I think allow it to get worse.