It depends what country they are in
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
C-c-c-conservative combo-breaker!
Edit: Sorry, I just wanted to say that. But I do think that falls under right wing with a sprinkle of social moderate leftism but even so, the debate of "can gays have the same rights as all of us" takes away from the ultimate leftist pov of "we should all have better material conditions as a class, including minorities".
Edit 2: and fiscally conservative is ofc "you keep whatever pennies you may or may not have, I got money Idgaf I'm not giving it away" which is the misunderstood antithesis of the concept of the far left.
"I haven't thought about politics for more than 30 seconds in my entire life but I don't want to admit that and don't want to sound like a complete asshole" is about the most charitable way I can translate that sound bite.
A walking example of privilege
It means "i'm not a racist, but i still prefer billionaires getting all the money"
Sounds a lot like economically right, but politically liberal
Just like every other liberal they are a nazi sympathizer.
It makes sense to me. There's no middle ground anymore and nowhere for these people to go. It sucks. Many people want fiscal conservatism but also support common sense social issues. I don't see what's so weird about this. The people accusing these people of being republicans or bad people are fucking idiots and shows the average understanding of politics/policy on Lemmy.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying that this describes me. Just that i totally understand it.
Understands the importance of kidness and empathy but doesn't understand economics
Libertarian
I am socially liberal and with my personal budget, fiscally conservative. Government money? Different priorities, plenty of stuff would be cheaper when we pool our money like that, so I'm not sure what fiscally conservative means. My gut reaction is that this person isn't socially liberal because regressive government fiscal policies harm the population, you can't really split it out like that. I guess it's someone who doesn't care who you marry or how you dress but also doesn't care if the schools are any good or if there is any enforcement of the rights to do the socially liberal things.
Extreme centrist
yeah. whatever.
“US politics new speak, can't relate.”
They believe in the social policies of the Democrats and the financial policies of conservatives?
I mean I would ask follow up questions but at face value that would be what they meant no?
I don't know if I've ever heard the quote IRL, but I've known libertarians and they've seemed fine. If all you disagree about is the particulars of economic theory it's not really worth getting worked up about.
I imagine this person being young and male, and possibly liking cryptocurrencies.
I have. Most people who say this IRL are very Libertarian and very not libertarian. If they like cryptocurrency, it's something new so they can feel smart.
Public service announcement that crypto isn't intrinsically dumb, but that the most popular cryptos are, and most of the fans definitely are.
The most popular crypto is one of the few that's p2p and well-tested.
Bitcoin? It's a first prototype that unnecessarily guzzles computing power, and has no privacy features whatsoever. We don't drive the Model T anymore.
They're all p2p, I don't know what you're talking about there.
Yes.
That computing power is necessary to secure the network, without introducing security holes or economic rent. And the rate of production gets cut in half every 4 years. The alternatives you've been told about are inferior.
The Lightning Network has onion routing like Tor, and drug dealers have been using mixers for literally a decade. If there's an inflation bug in Monero (like the value overflow incident), then that will be invisible too.
We still use steam power quite a bit, and aren't replacing it simply because it's old. Most new cryptocurrencies are like a Tesla, solving problems they didn't care to understand.
If you think every cryptocurrency is peer-to-peer, then I am literally begging you to slow down and look at how they actually work before investing more. They frequently have centralized issuance, security, development, governance... you name it. It only takes one centralized part to bring down a project.
I haven't been "told about" shit. I actually have a math background and know cryptography, and I've read more than a few whitepapers.
Monero does it better with actual privacy. Ripple does it with the least overhead of all. Eth changes so much I'm not even sure what all they have going on.
Mixers give a very false sense of security, relative to actual cryptography. People seem to think if you mix enough it's the same, but actually there's like a million holes in that, not to mention the trust in whoever's doing the mixing.
They frequently have centralized issuance, security, development, governance… you name it. It only takes one centralized part to bring down a project.
So? Anything worthy of the title is open source, so if someone goes evil it just forks. Monero itself started as a fork of something else IIRC. The actual algorithm isn't centralised in any of the big cases I can think of, not counting vapourware scams.
I believe that you're extremely qualified in math and cryptography. But thinking that cryptocurrencies are all p2p, and that Bitcoin dominates the market because they don't know this one simple thing, are both telltale signs of a novice. They're mostly centralized scams, and the concerns you're bringing up have been discussed to death.
Monero is a great example.
You're correct that it was originally forked off of Bytecoin, which had a premine. So Bytecoin was not peer-to-peer, because one user (the issuer) had a different set of rules than everyone else. If you had invested in centralized Bytecoin, you would have lost money because it was not p2p. They had to start over!
The problem with relying on "actual cryptography" for privacy is auditability, like I mentioned above. When there was a bug in Bitcoin that allowed someone to give himself a bazillion BTC, we were able to catch and revert it immediately. If there is a bug like that in Monero, we won't know until after it's circulated as much as the premined Bytecoins did.
They do not want anyone to have authority over them in any capacity. They want to fuck who they want, do what drugs they want, shoot what they want, exploit financially anyone they want, hire and fire anyone they want, control and manipulate markets however they want. They do not want any limitations placed on them by law, regulation, ethics, or morality. They feel no responsibility to anyone but themselves, do not value others that do not benefit them directly, and see society only as a means to serve their interests. They are the definition of narcissists.
You have no party if you are American as our conservative movement abandoned any form of fiscal responsibility 30-40 years ago. When was the last time a tax cut was paired with a reduction in spending? Oh yeah that last happened in 1983
I think "I want to keep my money and let you get gay married"
I won't waste my life savings on hookers and blow but you should absolutely have the freedom to do so without judgment
Me as an ESL being utterly confused by people's replies when apparently I understand "conservative" as per Merriam Webster dictionary definition 2.a "marked by moderation or caution"
😵💫😵