Emerging Narratives

[Empirical1]

<snip/>
In my opinion it is not clever to rethorically attack gvernments like this. Just provide the technology that will make it .. happen and be diplomatic and friendly otherwise

<snip/>
It is just not neccesary to make yourself enemies with authorities. It is against your cause.

Why do people still do it? Because fighting mode in which a specific enemy is identified and in which roles are clear (I am/we are good, the other side is bad) is calming for humans.

I agree and think that's an important point. I'm surprised to see some form of Newsletter evolving above! The formal position should be neutral. Talking politics is likely to alienate people and will bring a backlash that suggests personal egos and opinions are clouding the dialogue. Any talk of Government being force or nefarious, is partial and open to misinterpretation.

 

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις), means extreme pride or self-confidence. Hubris often indicates an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities.

Ghost ships that don’t show up on any earthy radar and have no ports of call where they can be interdicted

is all well and and good, but you have yet to build your ships and you can currently be very easily interdicted..

Even though I found Bytemaster's responses in 'the significance of what we're doing' thread extremely inspiring, I think the value proposition of individual DAC's will be so appealing that they speak for themselves and end up revolutionising the system as a result.

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.

- Sun Tzu

[santaclause102]

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCmvMDrCWjs seems super off topic. But any "political case" is a negotiation across society ....  It's one of the best guides I know "to get what you want". The best thing one can do do not get what he/se wants is to have his/her ego and fears interfere with his/her goals...  Your fears make you switch to fight/shelter mode.

[santaclause102]

Wow I could swear we are all on the same playbook.

"Unnecessary Imperial Entanglements" is only a slogan;  all entanglements with Imperialism are necessary...

Sincerely hope people realize that they will need to be 100% behind what the crypto community is doing...most of us have no clue how absolutely dangerous it could become to be a part of these ecosystems. 

Of course, in the end they will lose...but it would be really wonderful if the little people who put their necks out on the line would be able to truly see the world they wanted to help create, and profits be maximized for all. 

The why is important but there are better ways of doing that than demonizing what exists. Talking down the opposition shouldn't be necessary.

You might consider that Governments are nefarious, others might disagree and might appreciate their efforts; and yet you would both agree on what is being done here to progress what is possible.

If such narrative was written as a positive, to acknowledge how empowering the individual is liberating, it might go down better than kicking those who 'control us'?.. Even just abstracting it to the idea of how third parties are inefficient, might do better than tending to a typically libertarian slant and talking of 'others imposing the will of the majority by force'. There's no point in alienating half the political spectrum - just give them the tool that changes their reality and they will learn from that positive. Challenge what they hold dear and you'll scare them into wondering what viewpoint they are supporting.

2¢ - I would prefer that we're politically neutral, as that's less likely to meet resistance.

It will meet a great deal of resistance as soon as the bureaucratic mess of mobsters we call politicians start figuring out exactly what this means (if they haven't already) for their antiquated golden goose.  All one needs to do to see this is check out SOPA, Net "Neutrality" etc...to see that there is no real neutral in this movement. 

I mean we are talking about being neutral with one of the most amazing tools against fascism humanity has ever seen.  Co-opts are the first attempts in this current "cyber war".  Lets hope sheer hubris will make them choose to attempt co-opts and compete in the free market until the market is too robust for them to stop. 

Good post CLains...very "stimulating".

I think many of us would agree with a lot of the political rhetoric but speaking as someone who lives in the shadow of our Big Governemnt in the DC metro area and having first-hand experience with how they treat people whom they regard as "heretics", I agree with this completely! 

No point in directly picking a fight with them.  Be prepared for "battle" but don't start the war!

p.s.  Also, we know they like to use agent provocateurs to flesh out people whom they consider to be extremists. Been there so...word to the wise!!

Perfectly stated...don't pick it, but prepare like Rocky. 
@Bytemaster...is your team chugging along in the snow in your preparation for the fight with Dolph Lundgren?

Don't you think you can peacfully convince people by practically showing them what's possible, so you don't have to fight them? (A distinct fight would be lost anyway). You should defenitely try that first before putting unnecessary road blocks in your own way.

What exactly is fascism? All kinds of people seem to use that term for all kinds of negative things. The narrowest definition that embraces all those uses I could figure out was: Political movement other than mine; negative; autocratic tendencies; 

[fuzzy]

Wow I could swear we are all on the same playbook.

"Unnecessary Imperial Entanglements" is only a slogan;  all entanglements with Imperialism are necessary...

Sincerely hope people realize that they will need to be 100% behind what the crypto community is doing...most of us have no clue how absolutely dangerous it could become to be a part of these ecosystems. 

Of course, in the end they will lose...but it would be really wonderful if the little people who put their necks out on the line would be able to truly see the world they wanted to help create, and profits be maximized for all. 

The why is important but there are better ways of doing that than demonizing what exists. Talking down the opposition shouldn't be necessary.

You might consider that Governments are nefarious, others might disagree and might appreciate their efforts; and yet you would both agree on what is being done here to progress what is possible.

If such narrative was written as a positive, to acknowledge how empowering the individual is liberating, it might go down better than kicking those who 'control us'?.. Even just abstracting it to the idea of how third parties are inefficient, might do better than tending to a typically libertarian slant and talking of 'others imposing the will of the majority by force'. There's no point in alienating half the political spectrum - just give them the tool that changes their reality and they will learn from that positive. Challenge what they hold dear and you'll scare them into wondering what viewpoint they are supporting.

2¢ - I would prefer that we're politically neutral, as that's less likely to meet resistance.

It will meet a great deal of resistance as soon as the bureaucratic mess of mobsters we call politicians start figuring out exactly what this means (if they haven't already) for their antiquated golden goose.  All one needs to do to see this is check out SOPA, Net "Neutrality" etc...to see that there is no real neutral in this movement. 

I mean we are talking about being neutral with one of the most amazing tools against fascism humanity has ever seen.  Co-opts are the first attempts in this current "cyber war".  Lets hope sheer hubris will make them choose to attempt co-opts and compete in the free market until the market is too robust for them to stop. 

Good post CLains...very "stimulating".

I think many of us would agree with a lot of the political rhetoric but speaking as someone who lives in the shadow of our Big Governemnt in the DC metro area and having first-hand experience with how they treat people whom they regard as "heretics", I agree with this completely! 

No point in directly picking a fight with them.  Be prepared for "battle" but don't start the war!

p.s.  Also, we know they like to use agent provocateurs to flesh out people whom they consider to be extremists. Been there so...word to the wise!!

Perfectly stated...don't pick it, but prepare like Rocky. 
@Bytemaster...is your team chugging along in the snow in your preparation for the fight with Dolph Lundgren?

[GaltReport]

<snip/>
In my opinion it is not clever to rethorically attack gvernments like this. Just provide the technology that will make it .. happen and be diplomatic and friendly otherwise

<snip/>
It is just not neccesary to make yourself enemies with authorities. It is against your cause.

Why do people still do it? Because fighting mode in which a specific enemy is identified and in which roles are clear (I am/we are good, the other side is bad) is calming for humans.

I agree and think that's an important point. I'm surprised to see some form of Newsletter evolving above! The formal position should be neutral. Talking politics is likely to alienate people and will bring a backlash that suggests personal egos and opinions are clouding the dialogue. Any talk of Government being force or nefarious, is partial and open to misinterpretation.

Demonising others, like Government, is a mistake - and shouldn't be necessary. What exists currently, is more a statement about where we are. Ignoring some of the inevitability of history to suggest that there's somehow a conspiracy against what it obviously better, just makes the challenger look weak, where the reality is more that we're just moving forward and beyond what has been possible previously.

The old addage of 'no politics; no sport; and no sex', tends to apply. Such talk tends to put those who don't exactly agree on the defensive and drives a people apart rather than drawing them together.

Focus on providing the tool and not what it is to be used for - leave that to people's imagination.

I think many of us would agree with a lot of the political rhetoric but speaking as someone who lives in the shadow of our Big Governemnt in the DC metro area and having first-hand experience with how they treat people whom they regard as "heretics", I agree with this completely! 

No point in directly picking a fight with them.  Be prepared for "battle" but don't start the war!

p.s.  Also, we know they like to use agent provocateurs to flesh out people whom they consider to be extremists. Been there so...word to the wise!!

[santaclause102]

There's no point in alienating half the political spectrum - just give them the tool that changes their reality and they will learn from that positive. Challenge what they hold dear and you'll scare them into wondering what viewpoint they are supporting.

Any movement (in history) tends (tended) to form an identity by constructing a contradicting opposite.
Telling others that their world view is inferior will hurt their feelings and gives them no chance but to further their opposition to avoid loss of face. Any revolution will end in a new ruling of the one opinion. Making it a political movement (in terms of the power of groups over other groups) will cripple the positive effects of it. Non-polittical in that sense would be person to person in a sense. The one that believes that decentralization and trustlessness/automatizing are possible completely without disadvantages acts irresponsible. Unemployment might be an example https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3387.msg43998#msg43998. A balanced approach that does not exclude any though patterns is worth it in my opinion. It just works together and by talking a lot to each other to understand each others views.
Like with anything there is a disadvantage that comes with this: It leaves no space to construct your own (group) identity (ego) as the only legitimate (historically: divine) source which can be disappointing first and might stay less encouraging/enhancing if you don't have a cause that lies beyong your identity.

Love unites

[bytemaster]

The why is important but there are better ways of doing that than demonizing what exists. Talking down the opposition shouldn't be necessary.

You might consider that Governments are nefarious, others might disagree and might appreciate their efforts; and yet you would both agree on what is being done here to progress what is possible.

If such narrative was written as a positive, to acknowledge how empowering the individual is liberating, it might go down better than kicking those who 'control us'?.. Even just abstracting it to the idea of how third parties are inefficient, might do better than tending to a typically libertarian slant and talking of 'others imposing the will of the majority by force'. There's no point in alienating half the political spectrum - just give them the tool that changes their reality and they will learn from that positive. Challenge what they hold dear and you'll scare them into wondering what viewpoint they are supporting.

2¢ - I would prefer that we're politically neutral, as that's less likely to meet resistance.

 

[bitcoinba]

The why is important but there are better ways of doing that than demonizing what exists. Talking down the opposition shouldn't be necessary.

You might consider that Governments are nefarious, others might disagree and might appreciate their efforts; and yet you would both agree on what is being done here to progress what is possible.

If such narrative was written as a positive, to acknowledge how empowering the individual is liberating, it might go down better than kicking those who 'control us'?.. Even just abstracting it to the idea of how third parties are inefficient, might do better than tending to a typically libertarian slant and talking of 'others imposing the will of the majority by force'. There's no point in alienating half the political spectrum - just give them the tool that changes their reality and they will learn from that positive. Challenge what they hold dear and you'll scare them into wondering what viewpoint they are supporting.

2¢ - I would prefer that we're politically neutral, as that's less likely to meet resistance.

 

[davidpbrown]

The why is important but there are better ways of doing that than demonizing what exists. Talking down the opposition shouldn't be necessary.

You might consider that Governments are nefarious, others might disagree and might appreciate their efforts; and yet you would both agree on what is being done here to progress what is possible.

If such narrative was written as a positive, to acknowledge how empowering the individual is liberating, it might go down better than kicking those who 'control us'?.. Even just abstracting it to the idea of how third parties are inefficient, might do better than tending to a typically libertarian slant and talking of 'others imposing the will of the majority by force'. There's no point in alienating half the political spectrum - just give them the tool that changes their reality and they will learn from that positive. Challenge what they hold dear and you'll scare them into wondering what viewpoint they are supporting.

2¢ - I would prefer that we're politically neutral, as that's less likely to meet resistance.

[G1ng3rBr34dM4n]

Narrative circa Newsletter 2...

Free Space - The Ever-Receding Frontier

The jurisdiction of governments has always been defined by the land
mass they control by force. Out beyond the "three-mile" limit of their
shores is traditionally viewed as international waters. No government
has sovereignty out there, though many have tried to exert such control.
Their success has been limited to their ability to project power, whether
they have an internationally recognized right to do so or not.

We view the Internet as lying in international waters as well.

Governments and other nefarious enterprises try to exert power by exploiting items of value that
must pass through their control or by seducing or coercing service providers that must
themselves remain exposed in the physical world. But what of the etherial constructs of cryptospace?
Ghost ships that don’t show up on any earthy radar and have no ports of call where they
can be interdicted? Ships with crypto-graphical cloaking devices that can carry their cargo
across the digital high seas with impunity, immune while pirates and tyrants huff and puff in
frustration. Many will want to control this new frontier. But unlike the past frontiers of
freedom, this time they will fail.

When Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket strode into the American Old West they were entering the
Free Space frontier of their day. But soon “civilization” began to encroach and their offspring
fled further West. The Eagles once lamented, “there is no more new frontier, we have got to
make it here”. We disagree. In Free Space, freedom can still flourish - by design.

Bitcoin has opened a portal to Free Space - a land of opportunity.

Bitcoin is just a digital currency worth billions. But the technology behind it is beyond the control of
any government on the planet. There is no central point where tyranny can seduce or coerce the people
who have learned to use it. Instead they interact peer to peer, with no corruptible middlemen. Bitcoin
just works. And it has paved our way to digital freedom. A next generation Internet.

In Free Space, no one can read your mail.
In Free Space, no one can track your purchases.
In Free Space, no one can steal your identity.
In Free Space, no one can inflate away your savings.
In Free Space, no one can confiscate your wealth.

In Free Space, your wealth is all in your head.

Anyone able to infringe on even one of these freedoms has too much power.
The tools needed to defend Free Space are emerging, but the arms race will probably never end.

+10,000,000

I'll also admit to extreme political views (see: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2853.msg35591#msg35591) - not trying to rub anyone the wrong way.

[G1ng3rBr34dM4n]

<snip/>
In my opinion it is not clever to rethorically attack gvernments like this. Just provide the technology that will make it .. happen and be diplomatic and friendly otherwise

<snip/>
It is just not neccesary to make yourself enemies with authorities. It is against your cause.

Why do people still do it? Because fighting mode in which a specific enemy is identified and in which roles are clear (I am/we are good, the other side is bad) is calming for humans.

I agree and think that's an important point. I'm surprised to see some form of Newsletter evolving above! The formal position should be neutral. Talking politics is likely to alienate people and will bring a backlash that suggests personal egos and opinions are clouding the dialogue. Any talk of Government being force or nefarious, is partial and open to misinterpretation.

Demonising others, like Government, is a mistake - and shouldn't be necessary. What exists currently, is more a statement about where we are. Ignoring some of the inevitability of history to suggest that there's somehow a conspiracy against what it obviously better, just makes the challenger look weak, where the reality is more that we're just moving forward and beyond what has been possible previously.

The old addage of 'no politics; no sport; and no sex', tends to apply. Such talk tends to put those who don't exactly agree on the defensive and drives a people apart rather than drawing them together.

Focus on providing the tool and not what it is to be used for - leave that to people's imagination.

I politely disagree.  I don't think its an attack, its a statement of facts.

BitShares is not just a matter of 'What' and 'How'... It starts with the 'Why' (Simon Sinek).  That, beyond anything else, is why I personally believe BitShares is differentiated from any other '2.0' product out there.  There is an underlying reason that drives this team, this technology, and this almost inconceivable vision forward.

I don't think the Why should be buried.
I believe the Why should be articulated and presented to the public.

Take a look at the history of Bitcoin itself - it comes from the depths of the cypherpunk movement - a movement in which "being politically sensitive" wasn't even an afterthought, let alone a forethought. 

"Speak the truth, even if your voice trembles."

[bitbro]

Please don't attack the govt rhetorically


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bitbro]

Narrative circa Newsletter 2...

Free Space - The Ever-Receding Frontier

The jurisdiction of governments has always been defined by the land
mass they control by force. Out beyond the "three-mile" limit of their
shores is traditionally viewed as international waters. No government
has sovereignty out there, though many have tried to exert such control.
Their success has been limited to their ability to project power, whether
they have an internationally recognized right to do so or not.

We view the Internet as lying in international waters as well.

Governments and other nefarious enterprises try to exert power by exploiting items of value that
must pass through their control or by seducing or coercing service providers that must
themselves remain exposed in the physical world. But what of the etherial constructs of cryptospace?
Ghost ships that don’t show up on any earthy radar and have no ports of call where they
can be interdicted? Ships with crypto-graphical cloaking devices that can carry their cargo
across the digital high seas with impunity, immune while pirates and tyrants huff and puff in
frustration. Many will want to control this new frontier. But unlike the past frontiers of
freedom, this time they will fail.

When Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket strode into the American Old West they were entering the
Free Space frontier of their day. But soon “civilization” began to encroach and their offspring
fled further West. The Eagles once lamented, “there is no more new frontier, we have got to
make it here”. We disagree. In Free Space, freedom can still flourish - by design.

Bitcoin has opened a portal to Free Space - a land of opportunity.

Bitcoin is just a digital currency worth billions. But the technology behind it is beyond the control of
any government on the planet. There is no central point where tyranny can seduce or coerce the people
who have learned to use it. Instead they interact peer to peer, with no corruptible middlemen. Bitcoin
just works. And it has paved our way to digital freedom. A next generation Internet.

In Free Space, no one can read your mail.
In Free Space, no one can track your purchases.
In Free Space, no one can steal your identity.
In Free Space, no one can inflate away your savings.
In Free Space, no one can confiscate your wealth.

In Free Space, your wealth is all in your head.

Anyone able to infringe on even one of these freedoms has too much power.
The tools needed to defend Free Space are emerging, but the arms race will probably never end.

In my opinion it is not clever to rethorically attack gvernments like this. Just provide the technology that will make it (decentralization, all III stands for) happen and be diplomatic and friendly otherwise The technology is the crucial point which will make things happen. Making yourself  enemies with de facto authorities is just not necessary and might lead to some kind of ban of the ecosystem which supports the technology and will prevent more people from being positive about mass adoption of the technology.
It would be arrogant to assume governments couldnt shut down bitshares/bitcoin. They couldn't shut it down completely but prevent people enough to make real use of it because in the the transition phase p2p systems need to interact with centralized systems (for example centralized BTC/USD exchanges) to get enough people to use and support it!! It is just not neccesary to make yourself enemies with autorities. It is against your cause.

Why do people still do it? Because fighting mode in which a specific enemy is identified and in which roles are clear (I am/we are good, the other side is bad) is calming for humans.

+10


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davidpbrown]

<snip/>
In my opinion it is not clever to rethorically attack gvernments like this. Just provide the technology that will make it .. happen and be diplomatic and friendly otherwise

<snip/>
It is just not neccesary to make yourself enemies with authorities. It is against your cause.

Why do people still do it? Because fighting mode in which a specific enemy is identified and in which roles are clear (I am/we are good, the other side is bad) is calming for humans.

I agree and think that's an important point. I'm surprised to see some form of Newsletter evolving above! The formal position should be neutral. Talking politics is likely to alienate people and will bring a backlash that suggests personal egos and opinions are clouding the dialogue. Any talk of Government being force or nefarious, is partial and open to misinterpretation.

Demonising others, like Government, is a mistake - and shouldn't be necessary. What exists currently, is more a statement about where we are. Ignoring some of the inevitability of history to suggest that there's somehow a conspiracy against what it obviously better, just makes the challenger look weak, where the reality is more that we're just moving forward and beyond what has been possible previously.

The old addage of 'no politics; no sport; and no sex', tends to apply. Such talk tends to put those who don't exactly agree on the defensive and drives a people apart rather than drawing them together.

Focus on providing the tool and not what it is to be used for - leave that to people's imagination.

[santaclause102]

Narrative circa Newsletter 2...

Free Space - The Ever-Receding Frontier

The jurisdiction of governments has always been defined by the land
mass they control by force. Out beyond the "three-mile" limit of their
shores is traditionally viewed as international waters. No government
has sovereignty out there, though many have tried to exert such control.
Their success has been limited to their ability to project power, whether
they have an internationally recognized right to do so or not.

We view the Internet as lying in international waters as well.

Governments and other nefarious enterprises try to exert power by exploiting items of value that
must pass through their control or by seducing or coercing service providers that must
themselves remain exposed in the physical world. But what of the etherial constructs of cryptospace?
Ghost ships that don’t show up on any earthy radar and have no ports of call where they
can be interdicted? Ships with crypto-graphical cloaking devices that can carry their cargo
across the digital high seas with impunity, immune while pirates and tyrants huff and puff in
frustration. Many will want to control this new frontier. But unlike the past frontiers of
freedom, this time they will fail.

When Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket strode into the American Old West they were entering the
Free Space frontier of their day. But soon “civilization” began to encroach and their offspring
fled further West. The Eagles once lamented, “there is no more new frontier, we have got to
make it here”. We disagree. In Free Space, freedom can still flourish - by design.

Bitcoin has opened a portal to Free Space - a land of opportunity.

Bitcoin is just a digital currency worth billions. But the technology behind it is beyond the control of
any government on the planet. There is no central point where tyranny can seduce or coerce the people
who have learned to use it. Instead they interact peer to peer, with no corruptible middlemen. Bitcoin
just works. And it has paved our way to digital freedom. A next generation Internet.

In Free Space, no one can read your mail.
In Free Space, no one can track your purchases.
In Free Space, no one can steal your identity.
In Free Space, no one can inflate away your savings.
In Free Space, no one can confiscate your wealth.

In Free Space, your wealth is all in your head.

Anyone able to infringe on even one of these freedoms has too much power.
The tools needed to defend Free Space are emerging, but the arms race will probably never end.

In my opinion it is not clever to rethorically attack gvernments like this. Just provide the technology that will make it (decentralization, all III stands for) happen and be diplomatic and friendly otherwise The technology is the crucial point which will make things happen. Making yourself  enemies with de facto authorities is just not necessary and might lead to some kind of ban of the ecosystem which supports the technology and will prevent more people from being positive about mass adoption of the technology.
It would be arrogant to assume governments couldnt shut down bitshares/bitcoin. They couldn't shut it down completely but prevent people enough to make real use of it because in the the transition phase p2p systems need to interact with centralized systems (for example centralized BTC/USD exchanges) to get enough people to use and support it!! It is just not neccesary to make yourself enemies with autorities. It is against your cause.

Why do people still do it? Because fighting mode in which a specific enemy is identified and in which roles are clear (I am/we are good, the other side is bad) is calming for humans.