I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.
How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?
Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi?
How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.
I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)
A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller
And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick
I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.
Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?
I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.
This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.
What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.
She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:
Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.
Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.
Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.
Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.
You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.
Except, if we already had protections to prevent this from happening, then it wouldn’t have happened… Or at least the FDIC would have actually stepped in by now to pay everyone back and track down all the funds themselves.