There are many layers to this, but as I see it: The people who are the exact opposite of the toxic maxis, are the people with the voice in mainstream society and media. Therefore, they are the ones who have the most influence over the general opinion in society, and over the laws. Them getting orange-pilled is the best chance for hyperbitcoinization. If they instead fight bitcoin too much, making it illegal in most of the world, most people won't use it, and its value will fall drastically. It will of course still work, but maybe at 5% of current value, and no part can accept it legally, stifling adoption. Add to that the military power of this majority, that could threaten the other nations to quit bitcoining and to pass bans there too.
I believe we're in a hurry if we want the "bright orange future", and we don't only need to advocate bitcoin to everyone in general, but to the ones that the toxic maxis hate in particular. That is not done by harsh retorts, blocking and bragging that Bitcoin is invincible (while advocating staying humble). Sure the network is close to invincible, but the value and usefulness of it is definitely not.
Well you have to publicly shame scammers. Scammers (such as corporations issuing shitcoins like the Ethereum foundation has issued and sold off their shitcoin) is a need. Shitcoins don't "help with adoption". Shitcoins are a deterrent to people looking at whether to take Bitcoin seriously.
That said, this article was not about that. This article was about welcoming people who think politically differently from you. Which is very different from welcoming scammers.
reply
Yes, I wasn't talking about scammers either. Sorry if it came across that way. I meant the ones that the article talks about - the left, vegetarians/vegans, LGBTQ+, those worried about CO2, etc.
reply