It might be useful for the title of this post to clarify that this is the co-creator of Dogecoin, it’s not mentioned anywhere on the linked thread itself but is very relevant framing for the content. I didn’t realize who this was until I saw this thread linked elsewhere with that context
A smart man once said, "I'd rather be a hypocrite than the same person forever." It was Adam Horovitz, of Beastie Boys, when confronted about going from sexism in their early content to defending gender equality later in life.
I do this with myself constantly. I think if I met my younger self I would hate me.
I don't know how far back in time it takes for a disconnect of 'who was I then to do that?' or 'I can't believe I did that' but sometimes I think back to recent things and get so embarrassed my face turns red and heats up.
Like Bill Burr sometimes I have to scream it out and wriggle to release the shame.
I'm not sure what other peoples' conception of hypocrisy is, but for me I think that it's acting in a manner that contradicts, or is at odds with your espoused beliefs.
The simultaneous part is important, if your beliefs change and your actions change accordingly; that doesn't count as hypocrisy in my book.
Based on your post history, it seems like you may not be familiar with the expectations for discourse in this community. Per the guidelines[0]
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
It looks like a lot of your grey comments did not follow this guideline. I see you've been here since 2018, but maybe nobody ever brought it up. This community is different from other places like reddit, and its partly because of these practices.
I've nothing but respect for the group, including the member I mentioned. Instead of all this trash talk you could have just said what bothers you about them.
Foremost is what I said before - the quote is entirely unremarkable and unoriginal. You could easily choose a quote with the same content but said by someone actually remarkable, although there is literally no reason to quote here at all here since anyone that has made it through adolescence has came to the same realization.
What catapulted it from silly to amusing was that the person you quoted is entirely unremarkable, known only for being in a group that made some of the worst "music" I have ever heard get regular radio play.
The quote is particularly relevant to the thread, and who made the quote matters little to nothing except for the fact that the person did had a very public change of heart regarding a specific topic.
Why do you feel you need to ignore the substance of the quote and instead deflect it with cheap ad-hominem attacks?
The image you're conveying of yourself is that you're willing to forego discussing things rationally to instead focus your energy in petty persona attacks and deflections.
> He's rejoined and left the industry multiple times. While he brings up plenty of valid issues, Jackson could also do with some self-reflection.
It seems to me that his personal journey granted him a privileged vantage point to talk about this topic, with more insight than the vast majority of people.
Clearly, if anyone did that exercise in self-reflection, it was him. Don't you agree?
And why is he, of all people, the one being singled out and required to meet all those high bars?
Then modify his statement accordingly. Your issue with Keynes's quote is that he used the word fact in a way that indicates that it can be changed. But according to you, it can. But also according to you, they can also be "time-constrained".
But the general thrust of his point remains. When the time constraints of a fact elapse and allow a new fact to replace the old fact, he changes his position. New information allows for new opinions.
Arguing about the definitions of words to score points is meaningless pedantry. You don't want to argue the actual point, that you should be able to change your mind when situations change or you learn new information. Because doing so would make you look like you're just stubborn and easily led. But for some reason, you can't agree with the quote because then you'd be granting something to the person you're currently debating with. Or to the side of the debate you agree with, seeing as we're dealing with multiple responders.
But all of this is to discuss the credibility of the Dogecoin founder. And that's a fair discussion to have, because his credibility and motives are very much relevant to why he should have certain opinions.
But now it seems the entire discussion is being done a very meta level. Where we're no longer talking about his qualifications, his stake in the success or failure of crypto, his reasons for making statements, etc. No, now we're discussing the dictionary definition of "fact".
If facts are time-constrained, then a statement that was at one point factual may stop being factual. I would still consider that to be an existence proof that "facts change".
You may want to put some temporal logic spin on it, if that makes you happier (technically, it makes me happier, but I am content with saying "facts can change"), but the question I was trying to answer was "do facts change". I think I demonstrated that what once was factual may stop being factual.
That is a statement that requires you to reason within a temporal logic. And it is a statement that is not equivalent to "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia".
"Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact, (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English."
Are people not allowed to change their opinion? It seems to me that this is a person who once believed something, but later has gotten proof that what they believed was wrong and then changed their mind. This is a good thing, not at all hypocritical.
Changing your mind is hypocritical, your opinions must be kept consistent and non changing no matter what.
Really though, it's surprising that a lot of people have this same knee-jerk reaction to someone having an opinion and then changing it when making a comment (here, Reddit, etc.). Obviously it's not great to change your opinion with the wind or to simply please others but it's sad that any form of changing your opinion is seen as negative. Even for people that I would trust to be authorities on the subject like Jackson Palmer are not given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's a natural reaction to someone who doesn't conform to the group mentality on some subject.
One of my favorite tweet/relies with co-creator Billy Markus:
> @TerrysFishyTips: Billy when you made #doge coin did you try to consider energy usage or was that not something you thought about? How can the dev community make doge more efficient?
> @BillyM2K: i made doge in like 2 hours i didn't consider anything
[edit] So with this in mind, no, I don't find their position hypocritical. I quite enjoy following Billy's twitter. It's one of the most friendly/positive in the space, he's clearly trying to uh, do only good everyday if you will.
Doge was created as a joke, but it seems that Markus and Palmer quickly got a lot more serious about it, probably because its market cap exploded. Palmer only left the project in early 2015, which would mean that he was involved through the whole of 2014 when Dogecoin was a genius-level marketing phenomenon: that was the period of the original NASCAR sponsorship, for instance. The guy is of course entitled to change his mind, but he has absolutely changed his mind.
People are still doing it as satire just with billions of $ and people making a profit.
Elon Musk could have picked anything, he picked Dogecoin because... satire.
I think people still don't get in an inter-connected world for 7 billion people and losing established religions and other old mind memes jokes are worth billions, people will lose and gain lives over them, they will spend parts of their lives centred around jokes. They won't go to church, community markets or medieval fairs, they'll go to Dogecoin stores, why not?
Dogecoin was just a cookie cutter crypto with marketing and I would think mostly others took his idea and meme'ed it to the moon.
He can change his mind, but it still is what is was day one.
To be fair most religions are pretty cookie cutter as well. The Abrahamic ones even share text and repurpose holidays from other local cultures. Buddhism is the only popular one that is pretty uniquely cool, Sidhartha was pretty original.
Worse yet, this culture of shaming people for changing their minds/position is embarrassingly unintellectual and socially dangerous. Its one the most toxic attributes leftover from old timey gender role ideas.
I don't see what he has to be ashamed about? Nobody died. He created a thing as a joke, took it seriously, looked at it seriously and re-evaluated the pursuit. He comes out wealthier and wiser.
I don't really understand the 'advocacy against' part of that. Aside from the lexical contradiction, it seems there's no actionable purpose. What does he want people to do or not do? And what will be the result if they do?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/dogecoin-co-creator-jackson-...