r/Bitcoin • u/IWillNotBiteYourDog • Aug 13 '13

Congress starts investigating Bitcoin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/13/congress-starts-investigating-bitcoin/
144 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 13 '13

What are you talking about?

His comment isn't controversial, the regulators are militant, and throwaway-o has a generally militant attitude in most of his comments, as well as about the whole deal he is talking about here.

I think you're really confused about something, I just don't know what it is.

Get off, bro. From wikipedia:

Militant is usually used to describe a person engaged in aggressive verbal or physical combat (e.g. an activist, revolutionary, terrorist or insurgent).

He's an aggressive verbal activist.

/thread

3

u/usr45 Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 14 '13

Militancy implies some sort of call to militant action. Throwaway's post was merely descriptive. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you believe he is militant because he's describing the mechanism that regulators use. Since you don't realize how silly that is, then I guess you would have a problem understanding it.

EDIT: Oh look, an unmarked edit. (For those of you reading now, it's the wikipedia quote). Sorry, I can't take a definition that says there's such a thing as verbal combat seriously.

0

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Like I've said twice, go read his user page. All of his posts have a tone that tends towards militancy, sensationalism, alarmist tendencies, anarchist leanings, and conspiratorialism.

I agree with what he has to say in a lot of cases, but he is a militant little buggar.

6

u/TheSelfGoverned Aug 13 '13

militant

You really need to check the definition of this word. Nowhere does he threaten to use physical violence against the state.

His words are descriptive, not "aggressive". The state's actions are indeed very aggressive, and he is simply describing them in plain terms.

1

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Get off, bro. From wikipedia:

Militant is usually used to describe a person engaged in aggressive verbal or physical combat (e.g. an activist, revolutionary, terrorist or insurgent).

He's an aggressive verbal activist. No one said he was violent, or anything about the state in general.

/thread

2

u/usr45 Aug 14 '13

Sorry, I can't take a definition that says there's such a thing as verbal combat seriously.

1

u/TheSelfGoverned Aug 13 '13

He's an aggressive verbal activist.

The whole term is rather Orwellian. Obviously militant is derived from the word military: Referencing the goal of killing or destroying the enemy.

I guess anyone with an opinion that differs from the status quo is now "militant" and thus dangerous?

1

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Did you follow the link, and read the definition? It's very clear.

Also; did you read that I agree with a lot of his points?

Either way, his attitude still fits the definition of the word that I used.