I tried to talk to @DarthCoin about this once, but he told me to fuck off. 😀 Seriously, though, this is an important topic that I've been thinking about lately, especially with all the newcomers here on SN.
When a shitcoiner is trying to drag me into a useless debate, I just imagine that he's a police thug, trying to make me talk...
I NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. NO DEBATE, NO INCRIMINATION POSSIBLE.
I always reply (to the police) with "I do not answer questions", "I do not consent to answer this question" or I answer with another question that is putting them in the corner.
So same strategy with shitcoiners: no debate about that and that. If they can talk about using BTC in x and y case, ok we can have a discussion, but starting to compare x shitcoin with bitcoin, it doesn't make any sense and is wasting time.
The toxicity, yes is like a shield, to protect from their garbage. If you want to get dirty, you will smell like shit.
reply
been thinking too
reply
Toxic maxis say things like "you're not toxic enough so you don't care about bitcoin." Non-toxic bitcoiners say things like "toxicity is ineffective and has the opposite of the intended effect." Yet, I haven't seen either side (publically) develop a well supported opinion one way or another and I feel like the answer might be in some other domain where a lot of research has already been done.
reply
A month or so ago I replied to an SN weekend reading post that I was reading Jimmy The King, which partially involved the investigation of a murder. The police department had basically threatened and beaten high school kids into confessions. Coerced confessions are notoriously unreliable. The Innocence Project helps to free those wrongfully convicted of murder. Often DNA evidence exonerates people who had "confessed". To relate this to toxic maxis, the argument can be made that the aggression inhibits the arrival at truth. The intimidated shitcoiner learns what not to say publically, but may never really internalize why bitcoin is different and better.
reply