[2019-10-10] How the U.S. Government Tried – and Failed – to Shut Down Bitcoin

[Carlton Banks]

Or, maybe you could just, I dunno, learn what words mean before you use them?

conspiracy theory
NOUN
A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

So "crazy story" can fit well in the description.

I do want to continue this argument, because actual dictionaries are getting it wrong too.


These dictionary publishers would have the same problem as you in a court case where you are charged with a conspiracy: saying "Oh come on, that's only a conspiracy you're saying I did!!!" would be a confession, it wouldn't even get to court if you said that in a police interview.


So, I put it to you again, who should change their position here? You, and people who write dictionaries? Or the multiple institutions that would have you captured and locked in concrete room with murderers and child rapists for neighbors?

saying "not english" is no excuse here, most foreign languages had the word "conspiracy" exported directly into their language from English, with the spelling slightly changed, because it's a legal expression, pertaining to criminality, and only loosely connected to crazy stories if at all.

I find this particularly surprising because you are a non-native English speaker, as your own language almost certainly makes correct use of the word, in it's proper context.



I'm sorry if this seems obnoxious, but the word "conspiracy" is being used in a thoroughly Orwellian double-speak manner since the 2000's (and really the 1960's), and in a rather insidious and upalatable way.

When someone powerful is accused of doing something heinously immoral, their instant response these days is to use their influence to have the accusation dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". Every time you or a dictionary, or anyone else misuses the word, it reinforces the the social pressure not to take an interest in powerful people committing unethical or immoral acts, because the "conspiracy theory" label will be (mis-)used to make you appear crazy or paranoid. This is very clever (yet simple) psychological manipulation, not least because me saying that can be believably dismissed as crazy or paranoid, it's a beautiful concept to abuse if you're powerful and want to sweep something you did under the rug.

I consider it our responsibility towards everyone else, including the unborn, not to let this happen unchallenged.

And we should never forget, that Bitcoin itself is a direct consequence of solid facts that are..... dismissed as a conspiracy theory. If you relay the facts about financial markets, institutions and central banks, the powerful people with an interest to prop up their bullshit dog-ate-my-homework stories about themselves will call you a conspiracy theorist, and the facts a conspiracy theory, because you're telling the truth and exposing their lies.

[NeuroticFish]

I do want to continue this argument, because actual dictionaries are getting it wrong too.

OK, but be warned, my following answer will come based on (logic based on) how I understand the things in the language I know better than English, so it can be wrong.
Also, it may get long and it's already way off-topic.

These dictionary publishers would have the same problem as you in a court case where you are charged with a conspiracy: saying "Oh come on, that's only a conspiracy you're saying I did!!!" would be a confession, it wouldn't even get to court if you said that in a police interview.

In theory, in the court, they should talk about the facts, not about a way of saying. And if needed, they can ask for clear up and avoid confusion.
Also, in court, it's no uncommon that people hand write confession of something being white (the color is chosen for being something pretty clear), and after some time retract it and maybe write it was red.
Also, the dictionaries are pretty clear about what conspiracy / conspiring means. While you also know that an expression of multiple words, "a saying", can alter pretty badly the initial meaning of those words.
So imho your explanation doesn't stand.

So, I put it to you again, who should change their position here? You, and people who write dictionaries? Or the multiple institutions that would have you captured and locked in concrete room with murderers and child rapists for neighbors?

Neither.
Although some online dictionaries may ho a lousy job, the reputable ones are good, no matter what you think.
A dictionary has to reflect all the possible meanings, including the ones you don't agree with. Languages are not as fixed as math.

saying "not english" is no excuse here, most foreign languages had the word "conspiracy" exported directly into their language from English, with the spelling slightly changed, because it's a legal expression, pertaining to criminality, and only loosely connected to crazy stories if at all.

I find this particularly surprising because you are a non-native English speaker, as your own language almost certainly makes correct use of the word, in it's proper context.

You continue to insist on one word and link it to legal stuff.

Well, I'll tell about this single word too: some definitions tell that a conspiracy is a secret agreement for carrying out an illegal, immoral or overall negative activity.
As you can see, while it's about something bad, it's not necessarily about something illegal.
But this is irrelevant, since the two word should be taken together for the meaning. This happens in all languages.

I'm sorry if this seems obnoxious, but the word "conspiracy" is being used in a thoroughly Orwellian double-speak manner since the 2000's (and really the 1960's), and in a rather insidious and unpalatable way.

I'm not sure I've understood this right.
The term "conspiracy theory" is used a lot of times for stories about "bad things" various "parts" of the "state" do or cover up.
And of course I expect most of them be made up, only to sell certain types of newspapers or make some people famous. (Hence my first post in this topic).

When someone powerful is accused of doing something heinously immoral, their instant response these days is to use their influence to have the accusation dismissed as a "conspiracy theory".
Every time you or a dictionary, or anyone else misuses the word, it reinforces the the social pressure not to take an interest in powerful people committing unethical or immoral acts, because the "conspiracy theory" label will be (mis-)used to make you appear crazy or paranoid. This is very clever (yet simple) psychological manipulation, not least because me saying that can be believably dismissed as crazy or paranoid, it's a beautiful concept to abuse if you're powerful and want to sweep something you did under the rug.

I consider it our responsibility towards everyone else, including the unborn, not to let this happen unchallenged.

This is the equivalent of asking nicely the avalanche slow down, really.
The language changes, we like it or not.

And we should never forget, that Bitcoin itself is a direct consequence of solid facts that are..... dismissed as a conspiracy theory. If you relay the facts about financial markets, institutions and central banks, the powerful people with an interest to prop up their bullshit dog-ate-my-homework stories about themselves will call you a conspiracy theorist, and the facts a conspiracy theory, because you're telling the truth and exposing their lies.

Those things you (and me in this case) call facts, if taken into court, could not make a case, because we may not be able to prove them.
And since with no proof there's no crime, so indeed we have a conspiracy theory. Life is cruel, what can I say? There's not only black and white, there are also plenty of shades of grey.

[Carlton Banks]

you sound a lot like the sort of abusive person who popularized "conspiracy theory" to mean "crazy story": you'll do and say anything to hold onto what you've got, even when you know why it's wrong

[NeuroticFish]

you sound a lot like the sort of abusive person who popularized "conspiracy theory" to mean "crazy story": you'll do and say anything to hold onto what you've got, even when you know why it's wrong

I just happen to disagree with you. I just use the expression in the way many use and, while I understood your point, I tried to show you that there can be another point of view too.
What would be the point of an argument if I would have continued with "yes, sir" on every statement of yours? Is that what you expected? I surely hope not.

[Carlton Banks]

let's put it another way then


is arguing about whether the sky is azure or indigo more important than stopping corrupt people using pychological tactics to lie to millions of people? you seem to be in favor of arguing about a coin toss

I give up, you win! your ego is more important than millions of innocent people murdered, and millions more to come, all because pointing out who did it is a conspiracy theory. My bad

[NeuroticFish]

let's put it another way then


is arguing about whether the sky is azure or indigo more important than stopping corrupt people using pychological tactics to lie to millions of people? you seem to be in favor of arguing about a coin toss

I give up, you win! your ego is more important than millions of innocent people murdered, and millions more to come, all because pointing out who did it is a conspiracy theory. My bad

Hey! I apologized and wanted to stop, so I find it extremely unfair to say it was about my ego.
I stated that people already took over that specific meaning (and I happen to have done the same thing) and it's next to impossible to revert that.
And I stated that it can be easier to use any of the meanings and clear up what meaning it is (so go forward) than try to revert.
So I see it different: both of us lost.

[Carlton Banks]

fair enough

[Shalyn777]

FACK u.s. government

[Harlot]

This is just one of the many instances the US government had tried to shutdown Bitcoin even the whole crypto industry but even if they tried to do it several times already the industry still prevails. Don't get me wrong on this one but their operation hasn't stop yet that even their local governments like New York has issued what they call "BitLicenses" just to make the industry less desirable to enter. With this ongoing crackdown the only way to stop this and defeat them is to have the industry to be successful and I think we all know this is an inevitable thing to happen.

[1Referee]

Don't get me wrong on this one but their operation hasn't stop yet that even their local governments like New York has issued what they call "BitLicenses" just to make the industry less desirable to enter.

NY has always been extremely over-regulated. It affects pretty much every non crypto part of the industry severely. In crypto's case it doesn't really hurt the ecosystem with how most services would definitely apply for such a license if the demand within NY would justify it, but since it's lacking, they rather avoid it, which is a good thing.

In the end, the license itself isn't a bad thing per se if it was easy to obtain. It's the bureaucracy that makes it take a year at the very least when things move 'smoothly', which further bumps the cost a service need to spend.

Coinbase a few days ago announced that they are granted an e-money license by the Central Bank of Ireland. This is pretty big news for the space as it once again proves that not all governments are against Bitcoin and the broader crypto market.