Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:16:56 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Don't Black People Use Bitcoins?  (Read 9550 times)
FreeMonies
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
September 12, 2011, 10:26:26 PM
 #61

I'm "black" and I use bitcoin and I had a good laugh reading some of the posts on this thread.

Who lent you the money to get into bitcoin?
1481347016
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347016

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347016
Reply with quote  #2

1481347016
Report to moderator
1481347016
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347016

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347016
Reply with quote  #2

1481347016
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481347016
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347016

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347016
Reply with quote  #2

1481347016
Report to moderator
Anonymous
Guest

September 12, 2011, 10:27:39 PM
 #62

I'm "black" and I use bitcoin and I had a good laugh reading some of the posts on this thread.

Who lent you the money to get into bitcoin?
You have to be trolling. There is no other way this is admissible.
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
September 12, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
 #63

Quote from: Immanuel Go
So, no, my thinking is not flawed. The poor do carry money. Why they are considered poor and live in conditions one would consider poverty is another thread for another time.

I want you to write this thread on poverty and how it does/doesn't align with your whole "fairness of the free market" ideals so badly.
I'll give it to you simply: My lineage from my parents upward is poor farmers, military veterans, construction workers and inevitably slaves of the Spanish Empire. After meeting my great-grandmother who raised 16 children out of a tin shack, I can say from a first-hand perspective that a good majority of the world's impoverished are the happiest people on the planet.

I meant something along the lines of why you believe poverty exists, not whether you believe they are already happy with their lot (or lack thereof?) in life.
That's the thing: I don't believe it truly exists. I believe there are times when a society is held hostage or when a culture is destroyed by dependency ( I guess you could consider this true poverty) and other means but otherwise I see poverty (as it is called) as the default human condition. We are all born with nothing but our hands and feet to sustain. It's only a matter of who stops us from sustaining when it comes down to surviving.

I was born with only my hands and feet to sustain me, but I was also born to relatively well-off parents who could feed me and provide me with more than adequate shelter and luxuries (toys, television, computer access) up until and even past when I got my first job at 13, where I definitely didn't make enough money to support myself. So, is my default just different?

When I speak of poverty, I speak of the lack of resources for survival (food, shelter, clean water). Are you saying that everyone is born without these resources, and by their own labor gets them?

I believe a parent provides to a child by the child's own inherent value. It's unfortunate to say that some have a child while not being prepared to care for them and return the value they are worth.

However, I believe there is little reason not to be able sustain yourself once you are of age even if you were raised in poverty. You may not be able to support yourself on your wage if building codes are restrictive of lower-end homes and if your local economy is heavily restricted but otherwise we are all able to put food and water in our mouthes and a roof over our heads. My parents worked their way up to upper-middle class jobs with little issue from their trailer park homes and low-income families. It was harder but c'est la vie.

Anyways, your default was better than a lot of others but isn't very relevant in the end. We all experience life's journeys differently.

So a parent who does not, or rather cannot, provide for a child does so because the child has less of an inherent value? My parents, too, worked their way up (though in my earlier days we were by no means "poor", at least not to the point of food/clothes/housing being unavailable), but they will in no way deny there was a bit of nepotism in their journey. Does this mean that the poor deserve their poverty, seeing as they did not have the same advantages my family and your family did?
Anonymous
Guest

September 12, 2011, 10:34:20 PM
 #64

Quote from: Immanuel Go
So, no, my thinking is not flawed. The poor do carry money. Why they are considered poor and live in conditions one would consider poverty is another thread for another time.

I want you to write this thread on poverty and how it does/doesn't align with your whole "fairness of the free market" ideals so badly.
I'll give it to you simply: My lineage from my parents upward is poor farmers, military veterans, construction workers and inevitably slaves of the Spanish Empire. After meeting my great-grandmother who raised 16 children out of a tin shack, I can say from a first-hand perspective that a good majority of the world's impoverished are the happiest people on the planet.

I meant something along the lines of why you believe poverty exists, not whether you believe they are already happy with their lot (or lack thereof?) in life.
That's the thing: I don't believe it truly exists. I believe there are times when a society is held hostage or when a culture is destroyed by dependency ( I guess you could consider this true poverty) and other means but otherwise I see poverty (as it is called) as the default human condition. We are all born with nothing but our hands and feet to sustain. It's only a matter of who stops us from sustaining when it comes down to surviving.

I was born with only my hands and feet to sustain me, but I was also born to relatively well-off parents who could feed me and provide me with more than adequate shelter and luxuries (toys, television, computer access) up until and even past when I got my first job at 13, where I definitely didn't make enough money to support myself. So, is my default just different?

When I speak of poverty, I speak of the lack of resources for survival (food, shelter, clean water). Are you saying that everyone is born without these resources, and by their own labor gets them?

I believe a parent provides to a child by the child's own inherent value. It's unfortunate to say that some have a child while not being prepared to care for them and return the value they are worth.

However, I believe there is little reason not to be able sustain yourself once you are of age even if you were raised in poverty. You may not be able to support yourself on your wage if building codes are restrictive of lower-end homes and if your local economy is heavily restricted but otherwise we are all able to put food and water in our mouthes and a roof over our heads. My parents worked their way up to upper-middle class jobs with little issue from their trailer park homes and low-income families. It was harder but c'est la vie.

Anyways, your default was better than a lot of others but isn't very relevant in the end. We all experience life's journeys differently.

So a parent who does not, or rather cannot, provide for a child does so because the child has less of an inherent value? My parents, too, worked their way up (though in my earlier days we were by no means "poor", at least not to the point of food/clothes/housing being unavailable), but they will in no way deny there was a bit of nepotism in their journey. Does this mean that the poor deserve their poverty, seeing as they did not have the same advantages my family and your family did?


No, it's more like because the parents weren't prepared or chose not to properly pay for what their child was worth.

That's not a question. It's not a matter of what you deserve. It's a matter of fate. It's something that cannot be controlled nor does it determine an individuals happiness in the long run.

In the end, every individual can choose to contribute as much value as he wishes and receive as much as he wants in return. In a free society, nobody is limited to their current economic position.

Some have it easier than others but to complain about it is a matter of jealously.
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
September 12, 2011, 10:41:53 PM
 #65

Quote from: Immanuel Go
So, no, my thinking is not flawed. The poor do carry money. Why they are considered poor and live in conditions one would consider poverty is another thread for another time.

I want you to write this thread on poverty and how it does/doesn't align with your whole "fairness of the free market" ideals so badly.
I'll give it to you simply: My lineage from my parents upward is poor farmers, military veterans, construction workers and inevitably slaves of the Spanish Empire. After meeting my great-grandmother who raised 16 children out of a tin shack, I can say from a first-hand perspective that a good majority of the world's impoverished are the happiest people on the planet.

I meant something along the lines of why you believe poverty exists, not whether you believe they are already happy with their lot (or lack thereof?) in life.
That's the thing: I don't believe it truly exists. I believe there are times when a society is held hostage or when a culture is destroyed by dependency ( I guess you could consider this true poverty) and other means but otherwise I see poverty (as it is called) as the default human condition. We are all born with nothing but our hands and feet to sustain. It's only a matter of who stops us from sustaining when it comes down to surviving.

I was born with only my hands and feet to sustain me, but I was also born to relatively well-off parents who could feed me and provide me with more than adequate shelter and luxuries (toys, television, computer access) up until and even past when I got my first job at 13, where I definitely didn't make enough money to support myself. So, is my default just different?

When I speak of poverty, I speak of the lack of resources for survival (food, shelter, clean water). Are you saying that everyone is born without these resources, and by their own labor gets them?

I believe a parent provides to a child by the child's own inherent value. It's unfortunate to say that some have a child while not being prepared to care for them and return the value they are worth.

However, I believe there is little reason not to be able sustain yourself once you are of age even if you were raised in poverty. You may not be able to support yourself on your wage if building codes are restrictive of lower-end homes and if your local economy is heavily restricted but otherwise we are all able to put food and water in our mouthes and a roof over our heads. My parents worked their way up to upper-middle class jobs with little issue from their trailer park homes and low-income families. It was harder but c'est la vie.

Anyways, your default was better than a lot of others but isn't very relevant in the end. We all experience life's journeys differently.

So a parent who does not, or rather cannot, provide for a child does so because the child has less of an inherent value? My parents, too, worked their way up (though in my earlier days we were by no means "poor", at least not to the point of food/clothes/housing being unavailable), but they will in no way deny there was a bit of nepotism in their journey. Does this mean that the poor deserve their poverty, seeing as they did not have the same advantages my family and your family did?


No, it's more like because the parents weren't prepared or chose not to properly pay for what their child was worth.

That's not a question. It's not a matter of what you deserve. It's a matter of fate. It's something that cannot be controlled nor does it determine an individuals happiness in the long run.

In the end, every individual can choose to contribute as much value as he wishes and receive as much as he wants in return. In a free society, nobody is limited to their current economic position.

Some have it easier than others but to complain about it is a matter jealously.

You may not want to admit it, but your accomplishments in life are heavily tied to what you were given by your parents. To deny someone the opportunities to go to school and become a skilled worker simply because they were born and lived too poor not only is unfair to them, but has a net negative effect on society since, had they been given the education/food/etc we were they could be producing great things, maybe even better than we ever could.

Allowing poverty to stratify society helps no one in the long run. In a "free society" (I'll assume you mean free market/regulation-less society where the state plays a minimal role), there is no safety net for individuals who are poor, so instead of giving them a platform to stand on so they may lift themselves up out of, they are actually limited to their current economic position, since your economic standing at birth is, in the majority of cases, the best indicator at what your economic class will be all your life.
Anonymous
Guest

September 12, 2011, 10:46:52 PM
 #66

There's nothing wrong with being poor. That's where I stand. It's only a problem today because the laws inflate the cost of living artificially and prevent one of minimal skill to sustain themselves. Their is not a safety net in this society. There is only a prison for those who are lesser off. The corporatist governments have cut the lower rungs of the ladder and have told people they can only jump. Some do successfully. Most do not.

Sorry but nobody is entitled to an easy life start. It should be inherent since most people easily gain valuable skills. In an ideal society, I would imagine most companies training its employees from the very beginning. It shouldn't take economic slavery (taxation) to get people up and running. It's only like this because the cost of education, again, is overinflated by our corporatist paradigm.

In any case, I appreciate where you come from. We both want the society be a happier place; however, we have very different perspectives.
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
September 12, 2011, 10:47:37 PM
 #67

This is just like that "why do all Liberals hate Bitcoin thread"! Lol is it a surprise that I'm not white ? Must be according to this post.

I'm Latino by the way, not that it matters in any way, other than to repudiate everything this thread is starting to become.

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
September 12, 2011, 10:49:37 PM
 #68

This is just like that "why do all Liberals hate Bitcoin thread"! Lol is it a surprise that I'm not white ? Must be according to this post.

I'm Latino by the way, not that it matters in any way, other than to repudiate everything this thread is starting to become.

A few anecdotes doesn't negate the fact that the community, and to be honest most users of Bitcoin as a whole, seem to be well-off white males, while well-off white males make up a much smaller sliver of the world's population.
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
September 12, 2011, 10:49:39 PM
 #69

I'm "black" and I use bitcoin and I had a good laugh reading some of the posts on this thread.

Who lent you the money to get into bitcoin?
Moron...

The trolls now become racist, oh what a surprise!

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
September 12, 2011, 10:52:28 PM
 #70

I'm "black" and I use bitcoin and I had a good laugh reading some of the posts on this thread.

Who lent you the money to get into bitcoin?
Moron...

The trolls now become racist, oh what a surprise!

I'm pretty sure his comment was sarcasm based off of some of the more thinly-veiled racism by regulars earlier in the thread.
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
September 12, 2011, 10:53:03 PM
 #71

This is just like that "why do all Liberals hate Bitcoin thread"! Lol is it a surprise that I'm not white ? Must be according to this post.

I'm Latino by the way, not that it matters in any way, other than to repudiate everything this thread is starting to become.

A few anecdotes doesn't negate the fact that the community, and to be honest most users of Bitcoin as a whole, seem to be well-off white males, while well-off white males make up a much smaller sliver of the world's population.
You are so wrong...

First off the "Bitcoin Community" is an international community of people from almost every single corner of the planet.Please stop trying to playoff the "Bitcoin community" as a bunch of well-off white males off some forum, when it couldn't be further away from the truth. If anything it's a poor community of students/young entrepreneurs from all over the world coming together, to try to get a piece of the "next big thing". If there are any "well-off white males" here with allot of dough, they sure as hell ain't spending enough of it...

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
Anonymous
Guest

September 12, 2011, 10:55:09 PM
 #72

They just want an excuse for the libertarian-sentiment on this forum. If everybody is white, it's much easier to hate.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
September 12, 2011, 10:57:13 PM
 #73

The title of this thread is akin to asking, "why don't Jews us the Internet?"

If you just thought, "Wait, What!?  How the hell would you know that?" then you just got my point.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
PinkiePie
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


GROUNDED FOR TROLLING


View Profile WWW
September 12, 2011, 10:58:54 PM
 #74

The title of this thread is akin to asking, "why don't Jews us the Internet?"

If you just thought, "Wait, What!?  How the hell would you know that?" then you just got my point.

Exactly, it's not like anyone did a bitcoin demographic census.

--
MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD 2011
Cross my heart and hope to fly, stick a cupcake in my eye!
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
September 12, 2011, 11:00:38 PM
 #75

They just want an excuse for the libertarian-sentiment on this forum. If everybody is white, it's much easier to hate.
You're right, but at the same time you should stop trying to promote Bitcoin-Libertarianism down everyone's throats. If everyone just stepped the hell away from Bitcoin, and stopped trying to create "tags" for it, it would be in a much more stable footing. Giving it tags opens it up for attacks, and we simply cannot have that if we want this to survive in the long term.

Bitcoin is an open source peer-to-peer electronic currency. Affiliating it to any political party/ ideology/ race/ gender/ or religion only hinders it's progression into mainstream society.

This means that Bitcoin does not need Libertarianism to survive, it just needs to be useful at what it does, which is process payments without the need for a bank or third party clearinghouse.

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
FreeMonies
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
September 13, 2011, 01:17:54 AM
 #76

I'm "black" and I use bitcoin and I had a good laugh reading some of the posts on this thread.

Who lent you the money to get into bitcoin?
Moron...

The trolls now become racist, oh what a surprise!

I'm pretty sure his comment was sarcasm based off of some of the more thinly-veiled racism by regulars earlier in the thread.

Ding ding ding!
Winner!
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
September 13, 2011, 01:19:54 AM
 #77

I sure hope that this is a good thread, for I'm about to make a fresh pop of coffee, pour me a cup, and start a reading.
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
September 13, 2011, 01:40:42 AM
 #78



Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
September 13, 2011, 01:41:59 AM
 #79

Simple question: I'd like to discuss the demographics of the bitcoin community.

Why are there no people of color promoting bitcoin? What is it about bitcoin that disproportionately attracts white males? Could this extreme lack of diversity be ultimately harmful to bitcoin?

I've been following the bitcoin phenomenon for several months now. I've watched hundreds of youtube videos, read the blogs, seen the posts here, seen the conference footage from NYC... and until Bill Cosby I don't think I've seen a single African-American. OK that's not entirely true, I once spotted a dude who was in the onlyonetv studios once between broadcasts and he didn't speak at all.

From my perspective at the moment it seems the bitcoin proponents are almost entirely rich, white males with the occasional bored-looking female hanging around... Bitcoin, in a sense, could be viewed as a mechanism for prolonging the economic and social dominance of white males at the expense of everyone else. As we move towards a less racist, less sexist, more egalitarian society... Will bitcoin be a step backwards? [Well obviously it'll be a step forwards for us, but its going to be worse for everyone else]

Got my coffee. Read this post. I don't think Surawit did the required homework before starting this thread. I can think of no less than 6 black people who are heavily involved with Bitcoin. In fact, one of the first videos I viewed was of a black miner. I sure hope that his next thread isn't Why are There no Jews Involved with Bitcoin.

Full disclosure: The ghost of Sammy Davis Jr. helped me write this post.
Stalin-chan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
September 13, 2011, 01:46:04 AM
 #80

Edit: ^ 6 whole black people.

Yes i'm sure this is a
"Great"
Thread.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!