Asklemmy

43940 readers

761 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

386

What are some notable scams in history that went unnoticed for so long? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by bady@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

437 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] temptest@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling

The origin of the term sealioning is traced to a webcomic called Wondermark by David Malki. In a strip called "The Terrible Sea Lion," which was published on September 19, 2014, a character expresses a strong dislike for sea lions, only for a sea lion to appear suddenly and pursue the character relentlessly—to the point of following her and her partner into her bedroom—insisting that she justify her beliefs.

Your source agrees too. No-one is perusing anyone. You're willingly replying to me and I'm willingly replying back within a thread. That's called a conversation.

[re: https://hexbear.net/comment/3697897 ]

So it is all pedantic arguments for the sake of some theoretical version of something that does not actually exist in a functioning and usable form right now without all of the net negative consequences that already exist, right now.

No.

But you did a transaction! And in theory it can be for science(tm)! That makes it all okay because technically a dictionary absolves the holy code of all the wrongdoing done with the holy code.

I explicitly said it wasn't ok, multiple times. Nor did I suggest either of those would make it ok. Nor is there anything 'technically' about the concept of a scam, and why that's different to a wrongdoing.

If you're a leftist in any actual form please reconsider peddling internet funny money to people that can (and often have) lost a lot of money buying into it, whether through volatility or outright fraud/theft done with the technically not theft holy code you're apparently trying to peddle.

If you're a leftist in any form, stop making bullshit assumptions and listen to what people actually say instead of projecting some irrelevant ridiculous strawman stuffed full of shit-no-one-said. If you want to pull this nonsense online here then whatever, but if this is how you behave in person then it's actively harmful to the socialist movement, and that's everyone's business. We have a world to take, comrade, and this kind of false-premise ranting isn't how we do it.

[+] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] temptest@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In short, I'm accusing you of bad faith argumentation and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Alright, here it is without any of the bloat. My argument, and then more importantly, why calling out incorrect terminology even matters:

[click to expand]

A scam is a fraudulent scheme. (That's not some obscure technicality, that's what OP meant, and what business articles and English dictionaries generally define it as.)
Cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, isn't fraudulent (it acts as consumers expect it to: a valuable item capable of digital anonymous exchange).
- Whether it is harmful to our planet (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam.
- Whether people should stop using it (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam.
- Whether people abuse it for scams (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam. They were already doing the same with cash prior, and they do that with anything of value.

None of this is defending cryptocurrency. I am not defending it, and I keep saying that I agree it's bad. I am saying it is not a scam, people use it and they aren't being swindled.

The reason why making this kind of distinction matters is that critique of anything should be relevant. That's a bit abstract, so I'll illustrate with a much more extreme example that I've seen from other people.

If someone ignorantly supports Joe Biden, labeling them a literal neo-Nazi has zero rhetorical value there, but also zero analytical value. Anyone with a basic knowledge of what Nazis are will understand this is inaccurate and either an ignorant accusation or bad faith name-calling, and will probably dismiss their further points. But also, someone who actually believes Biden is a neo-Nazi will not be as effective in combating Biden's regime (this will be explained later).

Pointing out that Biden is a racist, nationalist, fascism-enabler and the head of a genocidal regime, and therefore supporting them is harmful, on the other hand, is much more realistic. It still conveys that Biden is disgusting and deserves a bullet. It still conveys most of the same ideas. But this time, the critique makes a more accurate and therefore convincing and sturdy claim.

Having a more accurate understanding of Biden will allow us to better predict how they will act, and how to prepare. Biden isn't going to say "Death to the Jews, let's put the trans in camps". Biden is going to slip out shit like "you ain't Black", make laws that hurt the disadvantaged in more subtle ways, and will fail to act to defend trans people. Biden is going to be more subtle than any neo-Nazi. A neoliberal and a neo-Nazi will do different acts and require different approaches to get mainstream people to realize how horrific they are.

Maybe Biden is a strange example for prediction, but another case would be DeSantis and Trump. Yes they're both horrible, horrible fuckers who deserve the same ending. But, how will they both act differently? Will one be more concerned with corruption, self-image and self-gain than enacting ideological goals? Will one be more effective in implementing their goals than the other? That can be the difference between life and death for many, many people.

It's not just a trivial technicality, using appropriate crits is the difference between being credible and being ridiculous, and applying the right classifications can be the difference between understanding something and misinterpreting it. And that will have serious consequences.