smarenwolf
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 7, 2018
- Messages
- 112
Yeah. Equality is nice, equity is bad.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Maxine Waters wants to ban tech companies from making cryptocurrencies (closed)
- Thread starter seanreisk
- Start date
- Status
Crypto’s need to be regulated, but the same rules need to apply to everybody. You can’t say Facebooks not allowed to make one but Equafax is because of some arbitrary reason.
While I don't feel that any group is immune or exempt from racism, you're gonna have a better time in US if you're white. If Brock Turner was black, you can be sure he'd be serving a 10 year sentence, not being released after only 3 months despite being caught in the act.
cyklondx
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 419
I think its important to remark that its fine to add some regulation if its needed. (which doesn't really need it.); I agree though big companies like facecreep, shtter, cutzone, microshaft shouldn't be allowed, mainly because they could attain to much power; Though those should be anti-trust cases, rather than legislation that will hinder one of freedoms.
cyklondx
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 419
Today racism only exist in racist's mind. Its a fallacy, if you are good at something it doesn't matter if you are black or white. You could be pink, you would still make a lot of money, and could either buy yourself golden teeth grill or rtx titan.
A make believe system at works, to pity one against the other.
// Your profile, i.e. Your behavior, and dress puts you at either advantage or disadvantage.
ex. You are riding in a train, and there are 2 seats open (and you want to sit down.)
One is besides black guy
the other one is besides a white guy
Last edited:
Big finance holds just as much power and personal information as big tech, I don’t see any reason why one should be allowed but the other not. The difference is one has a much longer track record of loosing data to breaches and using that data and power to circumvent laws designed to protect people from abuse.
HINT: It’s not the tech companies
After dealing with my fair share of cryptolocker infections on my clients' machines, I believe all cryptocurrencies should be banned. There's just no point in replacing a stationary bandit (the State) with smaller, mobile bandits (like drug dealers, scammers, data thieves, etc. - or even another rogue state like North Korea which doesn't give a damn about rules)
We'll also be doing the environment a favor.
We'll also be doing the environment a favor.
cyklondx
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 419
I think its fine, as long as there are consequences when they fail, or break people's trust. Those big companies, and even our financial institutions have failed our trust, and nothing happens to them, and they do not change their ways - thus something is wrong with our system -
We are not even talking about pushing anti-trust cases against them.
First problem is remembering that Cryptocurrencies are not actually a currency in US Law, they are a "Security", like a stock on the stock exchange. This didn't fix all the issues involved but it's going to be a work in progress. As for who is "responsible" that has been determined already in the US and it is not a company, it's the US Government. Declaring cryptocurrencies a security is how the Government seized that control, everything else is determining how they can be created, how they are traded, how they are regulated in whole.
#Edited> My comment here is not actually correct, please see my comment in #54 below before calling me out on it. I want to leave the original statement unedited for the record
Last edited:
Not at all, cryptocurrencies are not currencies, they are securities, PayPal and GooglePay just handle standard currency transactions, unless there is something going on I am unaware of.
#Edited> My comment here is not actually correct, please see my comment in #54 below before calling me out on it. I want to leave the original statement unedited for the record
Last edited:
Linked to a Paywall .... But I found another link and better still, the article below should help people see some issues that the government is struggling with.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/face...isfy-all-regulatory-matters-before-its-launch
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/03/12/sec-cryptocurrency-securities-law/
Actually, after reading this document I realize that my statement above is not entirely accurate. In fact, I think it's more accurate to say that a cryptocurrency may or may not be regulated as a security, or something along the lines of, "for a cryptocurrency to become a security, it must meet specific criteria ....."
This leaves things less defined when it comes to cryptocurrencies that do not meet the requirements to be regulated as a security.
I hate having to correct myself after making several statements that are not actually correct. So as I get called on the previous ones I'll just have to point to this one.
Last edited:
tempertantrum
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 395
I don't trust anyone with to have math skills. Don't be a dick.
You probably don't *really* understand blockchain, either, and neither do I. But you don't need to know everything about the math and programming behind blockchain to understand the impacts it can have on society and economics.
tempertantrum
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 395
That's actually a really great question, and I wish we could have more conversations about things like that. Obviously, a lot of it is context - yes, being "passable" is a thing, but it says a lot that coming out as not-white makes her a target, and it's specifically her non-whiteness that people are targeting says a lot about the people targeting her.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,623
There's nothing necessarily wrong with this depending on how it is implemented - think of it as anti-trust legislation. If you're a (big) tech company with lots of access to people's information, data, offering other services etc... then you can't also create your own cryptocurrency for monetization or otherwise your own finance empire of any sort.. Nor should you be able to create a thinly veiled subsidiary or foundation to do it for you. In the old days when companies did this it was outlawed as both things like the previously mentioned scams and private money/credit/"company store scrip" schemes. Tech is figuring - as always - they can get away with it because it doesn't look exactly like the same thing that was previously regulated thanks to technology, so it can be exploited er..excuse me "disrupted" (see: Uber, AirBNB). Seeing gov't for once trying to get ahead of it and/or has figured out the scheme, is a good thing.
I would much rather the equations and math involved had potential positive impact on society, I see the benefits of what blockchain and cryptocurrencies can do I am not sure the current benefits outweigh the global consequences. I do think that the existing ones need to be regulated in a meaningful way as they are far too volatile, easy to scam and steel, and too few consequences for the bad actors out there who would take advantage of others with it.
You know this dumpster fire has been burning for long enough that even the captain of the ship finally bailed out.
I'm mostly with you on this. I understand how individuals who have invested or used cryptomining to their financial gain would see it as a good thing, (it was good for them right), but I also tend to see it as a self-licking ice-cream cone with great potential to do harm to the foolish or unfortunate. If a person has money to invest, there are a number of existing ways to invest it, all incurring different levels of risk of course, this is just another. But while cryptocurrencies seem like just another type of risky investment, it seems that some are riskier than others, and there are far fewer controls and oversight involved.
tempertantrum
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 395
It's fallacious to call it "loosing" a job because someone else who is qualified gets it. It IS loosing a job if you are passed over specifically because of your race. White people aren't being passed over because they are white.
People tend to be mrudered by people they know. Hence, blacks and most likely to be killed by blacks and whites are most likely to be killed by whites. Don't take an over simplified view of the statistics to prove a point, it won't go well for you. Take a look at the statistics that go beyond simple percentages, and your story will fall apart.
Whites are not "demonized" for their skin color. (Some) white people are literally complaining because they "only" get their fair share of the jobs, instead of getting *all* the good jobs, which is historically the case, and still a problem in many fields. Additionally, there's a ton of evidence that more diverse teams (not just racially, but measured on a variety of scales) tend to come up with better, more well rounded, efficient, effective, and applicable solutions, so there's a strong business case for hiring people with different backgrounds, not just the typical white male for a lot of jobs. A lot of it isn't even intentional, but rather about who the hiring staff is more "comfortable" around, which isn't "bad" in and of itself, but it leads to only being around people that are "like" them, perpetuating the segregation that was in the past legal unintentionally, but still very problematically. Working to actively get people with new perspectives isn't racist, it's fixing a racist system.
You really need to take a statistics class, smarewolf. If you look at the numbers, you can start to parse out not just an overall average of violence against males vs. females, but pull out the part of those differences in violence that are due to occupation (females in dangerous occupations will of course be more susceptible then other females, that has nothing to do with their sex) and other variables, versus how much is *just because they are a woman.* Likewise, there are dangerous areas, and both whites and blacks in the area are more likely be assaulted in those areas. You're making things up. Look up statistical linear regression - you're really missing a ton of the story with your over simplified stats.
In general, you're kind of on the right track, and what you are describing has a name: intersectionality. A white christian heterosexual man will have a different experience than a black muslim homosexual woman, and each of these identities impacts the life experiences of a person. A significant portion of that is related to each of those identities, and how they interact with one another. The reality is, however, that the average treatment of black people is not as good, nor is the average experience of a woman, and when you combine the two, there are undeniable disadvantages regarding how society will treat a person.
A great example of this is looking at the criminal justice system, and how race and gender impact everything from likelihood that the police will be called, show up, make an arrest, how they will be charged, the way certain crimes are punished and sentencing (ie, things like mandatory minimum sentences being more applied to "black" crimes, how they are judged by "peers," opportunities to come up for parole, or whether or not they get parole, and the terms of parole... The reality is that, all other things being equal, being a black man in the system, you're going to be treated worse than just about any other subgroup. Look up Sonja Starr's work on the impact of race and gender in the system.
PS. Did you you ever have anything to say when white people were *over* represented? No? I feel like that should be something to contemplate, a potential for growth in thinking and self-perception.
tempertantrum
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 395
What if there is a black business man and a white business man? Don't make fallacious comparisons, you're just proving your point is wrong.
Oh, I've been away awhile, I don't know what's what anymore for sure.
Perhaps I was fooling myself into thinking that some would accept a gentle reminder while hoping that another good discussion wouldn't get crapped on and locked.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,315
I played in them for a while, made a few hundred dollars in profit with mining. I think so many people get caught up in the allure of the stories from the start. The people who bought bitcoins for a dollar a piece and then turned them into tons of money. But the same goes for stocks. I often remember my high school teacher telling our class that if we can we should invest in Cisco when they were around $5 stock price. Then they spiked up to around $80 in a couple years.
Hindstight looking at stocks is always that way though. Everyone wants to be a multimillionaire or more.
pillagenburn
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,271
Maxine waters heads the Financial Services committee, so the banks and other financial cartel members own her.
I'd like to see Facebank and the legacy banking cartel engage in a Mexican standoff in which they both pull the trigger at the same time leaving totally decentralized crypto the only one left standing.
then we would achieve relative world peace and eliminate hunger.
I'd like to see Facebank and the legacy banking cartel engage in a Mexican standoff in which they both pull the trigger at the same time leaving totally decentralized crypto the only one left standing.
then we would achieve relative world peace and eliminate hunger.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Crypocurrency is a ponzi scheme.
I would like to see EA/Facebook/Activision/Ubisoft all join together in one standard Cryptocurrency and replace their in-game RMT currencies with a standard one that you mine while you play. I mean can you picture it with something like Eve.... You are mining while you mine? I mean in that situation it makes more sense to me than fake in-game currencies that die with that game. I mean it is a win win for everybody sorta...
cyklondx
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 419
My point was that people profile, and judge you by your behavior and appearance.
Being well dressed, and being well mannered always grants you great advantage in any civilized society vs person who has gangsta CJ GTA outlook whatever their ethnicity is. Main problem for black people is that they dress like your typical friendly neighborhood gangbanger. (but hey if you are well dressed and well mannered, but your face looks like that of a killer, ppl will call coppers as you may be one of the most wanted mafia or something.)
// Actual white racist in my comparison would still prefer to sit with white guy, and would likely tell the black man to go back to africa or something more nasty.
In your example, and sad/uneventful reality a person would still look at them, and whomever looked more friendly, was closer, had better seat would be main factors in choice.
Last edited:
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
Please buy our trojan for our formally free eavesdropping service.
I absolutely judge every single person on the buss, and make a split second decision based on years of observation to sit next to the person who will smell the best.
cyklondx
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 419
Teenk9
summing up.
Gov wants control over crypto, mainly to collect taxes on value transfers, and to spy on people.
(If you are against gov you are likely a racist.)
Big shtstains the MNC's want allow themselves to funnel money outside of the country into tax heavens, and having exclusive tracking data on their clients.
(If you are against companies you are likely a commie.)
summing up.
Gov wants control over crypto, mainly to collect taxes on value transfers, and to spy on people.
(If you are against gov you are likely a racist.)
Big shtstains the MNC's want allow themselves to funnel money outside of the country into tax heavens, and having exclusive tracking data on their clients.
(If you are against companies you are likely a commie.)
Well, not to be a dick or anything, but this thread has burned beautifully and brightly in its short life. Unfortunately it got onto the campground lawn, jumped the firebreak, and is burning towards the houses. I'm putting it out.
I did like the image of Kermit, though.
I did like the image of Kermit, though.
- Status