I hate that famous Gandhi quote

[theymos]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Am I the only one who finds this quote extremely annoying? It gives everyone an excuse to say that they are winning. Even if you sit around doing nothing, you can say that you're on the track to becoming President because everyone is "ignoring you".

Furthermore, it is a simple statement without any proof or real argument. Why is this progression of events likely? Why does having people ignore you, laugh at you, or fight you move you toward winning?

I cringe every time someone just quotes this and says, "Look, we're in stage x! Not long now before we win!". It's a totally pointless thing to say and an excuse to ignore real problems.

[1713997190]

1713997190

[1713997190]

1713997190

[wolftaur]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Am I the only one who finds this quote extremely annoying? It gives everyone an excuse to say that they are winning. Even if you sit around doing nothing, you can say that you're on the track to becoming President because everyone is "ignoring you".

Furthermore, it is a simple statement without any proof or real argument. Why is this progression of events likely? Why does having people ignore you, laugh at you, or fight you move you toward winning?

I cringe every time someone just quotes this and says, "Look, we're in stage x! Not long now before we win!". It's a totally pointless thing to say and an excuse to ignore real problems.

Quotes are just like statistics. You can pretend almost any of them fit your situation whether or not they do, and readers think you're "educated" and obviously smart, and of course too many of them are just morons anyway, and fall for it.

Of course, if you really want to make the point, just do a global search and replace on the whole forum, replacing that quote with "I feel like chicken tonight." It probably won't even materially affect any of the conversations around the quote.

[Stalin-chan]

And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

Hope this clears everything up.

[Big Time Coin]

I don't find it "extremely annoying".  But it does describe a nonviolent protest of the masses against a tiny ruling class much better than it does  anything related to bitcoin.  I guess people are saying it b.c they think bitcoin adoption rate will someday soar and bitcoin users will outnumber the bankers, tax collectors, legislators, judges, etc. looking to oppress them.

[Stalin-chan]

They are comparing Bitcoin to non-violent protest, Ghandi is describing how people react to non-violent protest.
Bitcoiners think Bitcoin is non-violent protest of federal currency.

[wolftaur]

They are comparing Bitcoin to non-violent protest, Ghandi is describing how people react to non-violent protest.
Bitcoiners think Bitcoin is non-violent protest of federal currency.

I'm sure the feds see it as criminal protest of the tax code, though. 

[davout]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Am I the only one who finds this quote extremely annoying? It gives everyone an excuse to say that they are winning. Even if you sit around doing nothing, you can say that you're on the track to becoming President because everyone is "ignoring you".

Furthermore, it is a simple statement without any proof or real argument. Why is this progression of events likely? Why does having people ignore you, laugh at you, or fight you move you toward winning?

I cringe every time someone just quotes this and says, "Look, we're in stage x! Not long now before we win!". It's a totally pointless thing to say and an excuse to ignore real problems.

[theymos]

They are comparing Bitcoin to non-violent protest, Ghandi is describing how people react to non-violent protest.
Bitcoiners think Bitcoin is non-violent protest of federal currency.

So? You need to show that the quote is relevant in this situation for it to have any meaning.

[wolftaur]

Peter would have so fallen for mybitcoin.com.

[theymos]

What the Internet has done to my gears:

[BombaUcigasa]

It gives everyone an excuse to say that they are winning.

You seem upset


They are winning if you get emotional...

[Minsc]

I think it's about trolling, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

First they ignore the troll, then they find him funny, but when they fight him (get trolled by him), he wins.

[freequant]

This quote applies to paradigm shifts pretty well.
First people ignore the new paradigm (don't talk to Galileo, people say he is an heretic).
Then they ridicule the paradigm because they fail to understand it. (lol! the earth is round ).
But at some point they start to understand this is real, they take fear and try to destroy it but its already too late.

Winning is not a stage, it was the underlying truth from the beginning.
And this truth arises slowly.

Blockchain based cryptocurrencies already won.
They ARE going to take over a huge part of the economy whether in current form or in another.
There is nothing anyone can do to stop that.
So it is just a question of how long people will take to adjust and understand that the world has changed irreversibly since the genesis block was minted.

[Binford 6100]

This quote applies to paradigm shifts pretty well.
First people ignore the new paradigm (don't talk to Galileo, people say he is an heretic).
Then they ridicule the paradigm because they fail to understand it. (lol! the earth is round ).
...

When did the paradigm shifted first time? Ancient Greeks knew almost 2000 years before Galileo that Earth is round and also calculated the diameter. btw in no way I attempted to derail or hijack the discussion, just out of curiosity and lack of knowledge would like to know, why we forgot that in the first place

[jwzguy]

Couldn't agree more.

Also, it astounds me that people will use Ghandi's non-violent protest as an argument against any other kind of protest.

How many people starved to death in China under Mao?

[DiaperedDynamo]

First they've never heard of you, then they find out and start laughing, then when you stop being entertaining they poke you a bit, then you let something compromising slip and they take it as a cue to dredge up your sordid past while still laughing, then they win.

[Minsc]

When did the paradigm shifted first time? Ancient Greeks knew almost 2000 years before Galileo that Earth is round and also calculated the diameter. btw in no way I attempted to derail or hijack the discussion, just out of curiosity and lack of knowledge would like to know, why we forgot that in the first place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

[Binford 6100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

ok, 230 BC, now what?

[the joint]

Theymos, I think your analysis is an oversimplification.

The quote is grounded in context, and religious context especially plays a large role here.  Keep in mind that the interdependence of all people/events is emphasized far more in the east than in the west.  Karma is also emphasized (karma does not simply mean 'what goes around comes around' but is more directly related to cause-and-effect).  According to this belief, when a person get's angry, they lose because anger is suffering (how can a person be angry/vengeful if they are happy?)  In fact, ANY desire (the desire to attack, the desire to retaliate, etc.) is considered suffering because desire implies a lack of content in the present moment;  if you want something other than what 'is,' are you not dissatisfied?

In line with interdependence, if you do not retaliate against your attacker, you are adding positivity to the cumulative system....so, the attacker = negative contribution and the lack of retaliation = positive contribution.  If you retaliate, then you have attacker = negative contribution and retaliation = negative contribution.  According to this view, retaliation hurts not only your attacker, but you as well.  If  you don't retaliate, you win cumulatively since your individual identity is determined by a larger systemic identity (in Hinduism, this is the relationship between the atman and Brahman where the Atman is the individual manifestation of the universal Brahman). 

Then, there's the reincarnation argument which is entirely plausible.  If negative causes have negative effects, and if positive causes have positive effects, then it is possible that your 'positive' decision not to retaliate against an attacker (even if it means your own death now) may be better for you in the long-run.

These are just a few things to think about.  Keep in mind, what I stated is an oversimplification of the quote-in-context as well, and I barely even scratched the surface of the implications of the quote as applied to the context for which it was likely intended.

[Minsc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

ok, 230 BC, now what?

You have not donated any money to me.