←back to thread

946 points giuliomagnifico | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
mmaunder ◴[] No.25606123[source]
You’re angry. I’ve felt this in a trademark lawsuit. You think the world should get behind you and change the corrupt system.

My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition.

They kind of have a point which doesn’t make them right, but they hold all the cards and you will lose this one and regret the wasted bandwidth.

replies(33): >>25606208 #>>25606212 #>>25606283 #>>25606293 #>>25606297 #>>25606321 #>>25606344 #>>25606360 #>>25606390 #>>25606393 #>>25606407 #>>25606449 #>>25606498 #>>25607021 #>>25607059 #>>25607219 #>>25607787 #>>25607915 #>>25608000 #>>25608011 #>>25608017 #>>25608073 #>>25608099 #>>25608152 #>>25608166 #>>25608206 #>>25608337 #>>25608771 #>>25608889 #>>25614737 #>>25615210 #>>25618043 #>>25620562 #
sschueller ◴[] No.25606283[source]
No, how will this ever fix a corrupt system if you play by their rules?

This is why it keeps getting worse and worse. People just comply!

replies(3): >>25606502 #>>25606548 #>>25606771 #
xiphias2 ◴[] No.25606548[source]
You change it by going for the weakest point in a peaceful way under the radar.

I believe it's Bitcoin, which is a silent, non-violent libertarian protest against the whole central banking system that produces huge powers, but I know that I am in the minority.

replies(3): >>25606633 #>>25607013 #>>25607276 #
eecc ◴[] No.25606633[source]
Well, I can’t help questioning the “non-violent” part: it takes incredible amounts of energy to maintain that is quite literally taken away from other - possibly more helpful at social scale - purposes.
replies(4): >>25606787 #>>25606858 #>>25607137 #>>25608548 #
ufmace ◴[] No.25608548[source]
Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.
replies(1): >>25609182 #
asddubs ◴[] No.25609182[source]
It's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy
replies(1): >>25609409 #
ufmace ◴[] No.25609409[source]
It's absurd in the sense that, if you accept that definition, then anything at all - taking any action or even taking no action at all - could be called violent, which makes the word meaningless. It points to an Orwellian level of thought control. If anything at all can be called violent by any level of tortured logic, then it's very good to be the person who decrees what actions will be considered to be violent and what will not.
replies(2): >>25616166 #>>25617622 #
1. asddubs ◴[] No.25617622[source]
I don't know, I think it's less absurd than your usage of the words "orwellian thought control" in the context of a different opinion on the definition of a word.

If I'm standing right next to the fuse box, and I see someone in the process of being electrocuted, isn't it violent to not flip the switch to save the person?