7
8

New foundation member Olivier Janssens has called muslims 'parasites', used DMCA claims to censor reporting. (aaeblog.com)

credibit が 投稿

全ての 70 コメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]bjporter 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (12子コメント)

This might be a good opportunity for /u/bruce_fenton to show Olivier that Muslims are not all bad. He may have been brought up in a nasty anti-muslim household, or had a bad experience, who knows.

[–]bruce_fenton 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's a hard argument to win. I've had it and tried as many times as anyone.

If given the opportunity I'd love to do so. But it's not that relevant to his Board seat and I do support him in that role. I want to help him and the other board members be a success.

Thanks for tagging my username and noticing that discrimination is an area I work on a lot.

[–]Stronkt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Please help me understand this a little better. You work on discrimination, I assume that means you work against discrimination. Yet you support someone who openly discriminates and want them to be a success?

[–]Sugar_Daddy_Peter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know how MT Gox and other early companies failed as Bitcoin grew up? It's almost like the same thing is happening to bitcoin's public figures. They're getting chewed up as this becomes more serious and they're going to get whittled down and replaced by politicians who are masters of PR, dodging and bending the truth.

Honestly not sure about Bruce. Seems like a good guy but you can't make public missteps like this if you want to continue to stay relevant.

[–]aminok 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

He didn't openly discriminate though. He expressed prejudicial beliefs. His actual political stance is to support a free market for all. That is what Bitcoin promises to bring about.

[–]Stronkt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How is not open discrimination if he is posting it on FaceBook and it is being reported on? Using one entity to suppress the voice of another sounds a lot like discrimination.

[–]aminok 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Maybe we're using different definitions for 'discriminate'. Discriminate I take to mean called for one group to be treated differently than another by the laws of the country. I didn't see that. All I saw was some prejudice, which looks ugly, but is frankly quite common, and eclipsed in importance by his work to advance human freedom.

[–]Stronkt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I see what you're saying. I still don't see how this isn't a contradiction for Bruce. I don't know the whole story but it appears this guy has discriminated using the DMCA claims to censor reporting. That is suppressing free speech and I assume it is because of his prejudice.

[–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think Bruce is saying that people are entitled to have personal qualities that we may view as ugly, as long as they're not violating other people's freedom, and that if someone can do the job, and those qualities don't interfere with their ability to do it, those qualities shouldn't disqualify them, but I can't speak for him.

[–]Stronkt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Using DMCA claims to censor reporting is suppressing free speech. That is active discrimination.

[–]aminok 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's not actually "discrimination". Even if we argue that IP laws like DMCA are unlibertarian, they're not discriminatory toward any particular group.

[–]Axis_of_Uranus 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Muslims are not parasites, they are just followers of a religion invented by a backward schizophrenic misogynist pedowarlord.

Lack of education, indoctrination of lies and delusion leads to abuse.

[–]tatertatertatertot 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Janssens: HHH (ed. Hans Herman Hoppe) has the balls to say that, thanks to our welfare state, our genetic pool is fucked. Exactly my thoughts. The only reason the Muslim parasite can breed at a 10 times faster pace than us. Totally love this guy.

Congratulations on your new representative, bitcoin.

[–]EightEx 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow, what rancid thoughts. Just goes to show, not everyone into Bitcoin is a forward thinker.

[–]IronicVisa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't have an enforceable expectation of privacy when you post on a comment section on a website.

[–]aminok -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (50子コメント)

This post has the attention of Buttcoin trolls:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/2xnyyg/newly_elected_member_of_the_bitcoin_foundation/

His support of libertarian principles far outweighs expressions of anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment. Let's face it, many people hold some prejudicial views, and feel an allegiance to their culture and ethnic stock, but hide it due to political correctness. So in a private conversation, Janssens expressed some of his beliefs. It's not a big deal in my opinion, and shouldn't be used to overshadow all of the positive he has done. The most liberal politician orchestrating a new war in the MENA world, or voting for new banking regulations that make international remittance more difficult, and all with the most color blind of intentions, is causing more harm than a nativist libertarian, who holds the most prejudicial of beliefs, opposes immigration, and who just wants the government to leave him alone and not create trade restrictions or embark on foreign military interventions.

Case in point:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/19/remittance-cutoffs-threaten-somalis

It's worth noting that those who are digging up dirt on the new Bitcoin Foundation head are doing it because they don't want a change in the status quo towards a free world, and think the reaction to this finding will hurt Bitcoin.

[–]tatertatertatertot 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Janssens also tried to have the website censored, utilizing DMCA takedown notices, copyright, and other legal actions:

One of the racists quoted in the statement, a certain Olivier Janssens, demanded that the notice be taken down, alleging that a) his comments were copyrighted and shouldn’t be quoted without his consent, and b) his privacy was violated, and personal safety threatened, since we had made public his comments from a private forum. Since we judged that explaining the disaffiliation, and warning potential comrades against Janssens and his entryist colleagues, created a fair-use context for the quotations – and since, contrary to Janssens’s assertions, the forum in which the comments were made was actually public at the time he made them – we declined his request (with some asperity).

Apparently unaware of the concept of the “Streisand Effect,” Janssens engaged a lawyer – one who publicly brags about the ease of using flimsy DMCA claims to intimidate web hosts into compliance – who thereupon used a flimsy DMCA claim to intimidate C4SS/S4SS’s web host into compliance, and both the C4SS and S4SS websites were shut down.

Libertarian when it suits him, seems like...

[–]aminok -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

IP is not opposed by all libertarianism, and in any case, is a relatively minor intervention by the government relative to the regs that govern most industries.

[–]cacheson 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's opposed by consistent libertarians, which Janssens is clearly not.

[–]aminok -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No one is perfect.

[–]tatertatertatertot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Okay. But do you feel this specific issue of reporting and fair-use contextual publication involves protected IP that requires legal action?

[–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I might not, and he might have been in the wrong in doing so. So let's say he's not perfect. So what?

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    /u/changetip 150 bits thanks bot-maker!

    [–]changetip 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    /u/TotesMessenger, aminok wants to send you a Bitcoin tip for 150 bits. Follow me to collect it.

    ChangeTip info | ChangeTip video | /r/Bitcoin

    [–]AlyoshaV 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    So in a private conversation, Janssens expressed some of his beliefs

    The Facebook page of an organization is not a private conversation.

    It's not a big deal in my opinion

    Another member of his organization was calling for all "sandniggers" to be gunned down. Because they have the wrong religion.

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Facebook has private groups. It might not fit the legal description of private, I'm not sure, but it's nothing like a groups accessible to the general public.

    He can't be blamed for what another person writes. Obviously his lack of reaction to it was a moral lapse on his part, but again, his own views and actions have been to promote the lessening of coercive force by the state, and we shouldn't discount that because of one ugly conversation.

    [–]cacheson 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Facebook has private groups. It might not fit the legal description of private, I'm not sure, but it's nothing like a groups accessible to the general public.

    This was not a private group, it was publicly accessible to anyone with a Facebook account. It was closed after the fact in attempt to cover up the issue after they were called out on it.

    He can't be blamed for what another person writes.

    He can be blamed for what he writes. And for what he does. The company he keeps doesn't help either, but the first two points are damning enough on their own.

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    No one is perfect. So a couple lines of text that show he has some prejudices should discount years of working to make hundreds of millions of people more free? I don't think so.

    [–]cacheson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    So your argument is "leave Britney alone"?

    [–]tatertatertatertot 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (19子コメント)

    Another edit, another reply:

    It's worth noting that those who are digging up dirt on the new Bitcoin Foundation head are doing it because they don't want a change in the status quo towards a free world, and think the reaction to this finding will hurt Bitcoin.

    The continuation of his service on the Foundation will hurt bitcoin more than anything. You think /r/buttcoin wouldn't love a racist on the Foundation? Are you kidding? It's a mine of "comedy gold."

    Since you're more concerned with his libertarian principles, apparently, here's what Janssens' guiding light Hans-Hermann Hoppe as to say on this supposed libertarian "free world":

    In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA216e#v=onepage&q&f=false

    I'm sorry, but that isn't libertarian as I know it, and surely not only /r/buttcoin should be horrified that someone the Foundation elected (Jannsens) holds such a man as Hoppe in high esteem for his social views.

    The Foundation elected an anchor.

    [–]aminok -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

    That political correctness is more important than supporting human freedom is a sad testament of our times. "It's okay if you put the people in chains, and destroy their future, just don't be prejudiced against an ethnicity or religion while doing it".

    As for Hoppe, he equates ideologies that favor government intervention in voluntary human actions and interactions (laws against profiteering, blasphemy, whatever), as fundamentally repressive, and threatening to free people. It's a debatable point but it's not clearly un-libertarian.

    [–]tatertatertatertot 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (17子コメント)

    That political correctness is more important than supporting human freedom

    Ah, yes, look the other way because "political correctness" is invoked. Throw in SJW and maybe you'll get another few people on your side?

    But even the Muslim-centric comments by Janssens himself are self-evidently not about supporting human freedom -- they are about advocating restriction of human movement and decrying reproductive freedom. Invoking "political correctness" as a reason his comments should be ignored is absurd.

    As for Hoppe, he equates ideologies that favor government intervention in voluntary human interactions (laws against profiteering, blasphemy, whatever), as fundamentally repressive, and threatening to free people. It's a debatable point but it's not clearly un-libertarian.

    Removal of gay individuals, pagans, practictioners of "individual hedonism" (whatever that means), is not un-libertarian? Really?

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not a libertarian, no matter the label he applies to himself and applies to others. He is a socially conservative nativist, more interested in tradition and order (selected and imposed by people like him) than he is in personal freedom. This is readily apparent by the above-quoted passage. He wants to impose his ideas, his beliefs, and his structures on society -- not just in part, but in full, to be realized by the literal removal of people who dissent from society.

    [–]Splartacus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not a libertarian, no matter the label he applies to himself and applies to others. He is a socially conservative nativist, more interested in tradition and order (selected and imposed by people like him) than he is in personal freedom. This is readily apparent by the above-quoted passage. He wants to impose his ideas, his beliefs, and his structures on society -- not just in part, but in full, to be realized by the literal removal of people who dissent from society.

    Actually you are completely wrong, and you obviously have not read Hoppe. Here, read:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/free-immigration-is-forced-integration/

    [–]tatertatertatertot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Oh, I am aware of what he calls himself in essays that he writes.

    But a guy who says this:

    ...in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

    ...is not a libertarian in a way most libertarians would recognize. This is some sort of strange demand for "morality", coupled with the unspoken necessity that someone must judge who is a parasite, who is too "hedonistic" or not "kin-centered" enough, who likes trees a little too much -- and thus must be forcibly removed from society. Hoppe makes it clear that he, and people like him, are the ones who should judge (since he's given us this list in the first place).

    He's a socially-conservative nativist, just with a core and fundamental belief in private property that seems to fool some people into ignoring what he layers on top of it.

    [–]Splartacus -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Again, it is transparently obvious that you are not familiar with Hoppe beyond having read some paragraphs that fail to genuflect to your sacred-cows.

    You don't get to decide who can legitimately call themselves a libertarian. Hoppe has long been an icon at Lew Rockwell's site, and at the Mises Institute, both of which promote and sell his books. It will probably surprise you to learn that even Rothbard was no social liberal.

    You are free to consider such people not 'real' libertarians, but the evidence seems to suggest that you yourself are less than a 'real libertarian'. Perhaps one of the 'left-libertarians' that Rothbard detested, and whom Hoppe skewers so well here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/

    It's very amusing that you accuse Hoppe of wanting to suppress 'dissent'. Perhaps you should look in the mirror:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/no_author/remember-when-millennials-believed-in-free-speech/

    [–]tatertatertatertot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's very amusing that you accuse Hoppe of wanting to suppress 'dissent'. Perhaps you should look in the mirror:

    This is a little much. He openly is for suppressing dissent -- this is a positive and not a negative according to him, and it's not some slur it's precisely what he proposes. He says he wants to physically deport people who conflict with his ideology, and drilling down further his specific interpretation of his ideology.

    I do not want the same for him, and have said nothing about physically removing anyone from society.

    Comparing our two "suppressions" of dissent, where I point things out and he physical removes people from society, doesn't result in anything close to the same thing.

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    they are about advocating restriction of human movement and decrying reproductive freedom.

    Supporting immigration controls does not contradict libertarianism. Many libertarians believe if the gates are swung open, a country will be flooded by foreigners who do not respect the principles of freedom that a country's libertarian(ish) ethos is based on.

    He never decried reproductive freedom.

    He is a socially conservative nativist, more interested in tradition and order (selected and imposed by people like him) than he is in personal freedom. This is readily apparent by the above-quoted passage.

    The above passage does not show that at all. I provided a libertarian interpretation for his statement that you ignored.

    [–]cacheson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    Supporting immigration controls does not contradict libertarianism.

    So if I invite someone to live or work on my property, you support the state kidnapping them and punishing me? And that somehow doesn't contradict libertarianism?

    [–]aminok -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    So if I invite someone to live or work on my property, you support the state kidnapping them and punishing me?

    But we don't live in a society where you can invite someone to live on your property, and they will be restricted to your property. Once they're across the border, they can go anywhere. A large enough group of foreigners can undermine a country's freedom, by joining the political system and pushing for new taxes, demanding that private property be redistributed to them, etc. These are legitimate concerns, as many people in the world do not have libertarian beliefs, and would support laws that limit human freedom.

    [–]cacheson 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Alright, I think I understand where you're coming from now. You oppose libertarianism because it would allow people to undermine libertarianism. We need to support laws that limit human freedom, on the off chance that people might choose to support laws that limit human freedom. We can read about it, and think about it, and talk about it (unless Olivier Janssens doesn't want us to), but trying to actually put it into practice would be foolish. Good thing we've got the state to protect us from ourselves!

    [–]aminok -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Thanks for the straw man.

    [–]cacheson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Seriously, you're incoherent. Ridicule is the only option at this point.

    [–]dnivi3 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    So in a private conversation, Janssens expressed some of his beliefs.

    Just that this wasn't a private conversation, rather a very public discussion in a very public forum on Facebook.

    It's not only an "anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment", Jannssens seems to hate everything that has to do with Islam and immigrants as well as believing in a grand conspiracy in which the Arab world and Muslims are helping leftist parties grow. It's disgraceful that you think his support of libertarianism outweights these disgusting and hateful expressions.

    [–]aminok -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The impression I got from the article is that this was a private forum.

    You can embellish it all you want, but his view is extremely common nativist prejudice toward the other, and far less destructive than the wholesale destruction caused by government intervention that is the status quo. Whatever his personal views may be, they are eclipsed by the actions he has taken to promote human freedom.

    [–]dnivi3 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What kind of human freedom, and for whom, is he supporting? Certainly not freedom for Muslims or immigrants if he's that hateful towards them. There is no human freedom without freedom for every human.

    I don't understand this grandeur beliefs of Jannssens doing so much for human freedom. What has he actually done?

    [–]aminok -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Opposing free movement of people across a country's borders is not anti-freedom. It's about national security and maintaining the country's character, including their liberal laws. He did not in any way promote laws to restrict the freedom of Muslims. He simply doesn't want immigration. That's not an unacceptable position to have for a libertarian.

    I don't understand this grandeur beliefs of Jannssens doing so much for human freedom. What has he actually done?

    He donated $100,000 for the development of a decentralized, peer-to-peer alternative to the Bitcoin Foundation, which helped fund two important projects, including Lighthouse.

    [–]cacheson 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Please stop trying to spin this. You are not doing Bitcoiners or libertarians any favors.

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I'm sharing my opinion on the issue. We're supposing to be outraged more by lack of political correctness, than by hundreds of millions of people having their future destroyed by lack of basic freedom, brought about by the same set of ideologies that Janssens has worked so hard to oppose.

    [–]cacheson 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Worked so hard to oppose... by censoring actual libertarians? You are seriously confused at best.

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Supporting IP laws in one instance is eclipsed by his many years of support for a currency that can move without government restrictions, yes. Hundreds of millions of people being able to safeguard their wealth and trade with other countries to earn a living is exponentially more important than this.

    [–]cacheson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    This is not about the fact that he supports intellectual property. That's idiotic and unlibertarian, but whatever.

    He used spurious legal claims in an attempt to censor ACTUAL LIBERTARIANS (who also SUPPORT BITCOIN) when they called him out on his shit. Why are you crying about how libertarian he is?

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    He used IP laws to try to take down a webpage that he felt extremely threatened by (for good reason).

    [–]cacheson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Good reason? So just so we're clear, you support racism and censorship over libertarianism and free discussion?

    [–]aminok -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I think 'free discussion' that promotes unconsensual impositions (socialism) (e.g. "let's pass a law that takes all of group X's property away, and lock them up if they don't comply") is arguably tantamount to conspiring to commit violence and tyranny.

    [–]cacheson 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I think 'free discussion' that promotes unconsensual impositions (socialism)

    Whoa, where did that one come from? You're really reaching here.

    Are you confused about the aims of the "Center for a Stateless Society" or "Students for a Stateless Society"? I'll give you a hint, it's in the names.

    [–]jonf3n 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    feel an allegiance to their culture and ethnic stock...

    This has no place in the world today, especially something as global as Bitcoin.

    This is not the kind of person who should be representing bitcoin.

    [–]aminok 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This has no place in the world today, especially something as global as Bitcoin.

    I see your point, but I simply see it as less important than the actual work he has done to make Bitcoin accessible to everyone.

    I think we shouldn't go overboard in trying to enforce some uniform view on sensitive issues like race and ethnicity. What matters most, IMO, is that Janssens clearly supports a Bitcoin that will benefit everyone, regardless of their cultural or ethnic background, and has contributed significantly to open source Bitcoin projects.

    If someone at one point in their life wrote something that they're clearly ashamed of (he tried to have it taken down), that shouldn't disqualify them for the rest of their life to be a part of our society. We should be able to look past one flaw or mistake in a person, and weigh it against the good they have done.

    This is not the kind of person who should be representing bitcoin.

    Maybe he will end up being forced to resign, because of the furor that's created any time it comes out that someone expressed a politically incorrect viewpoint, but I think that's a shame, as it reinforces the current order where supporting laws that imprison hundreds of millions in figurative economic cages is seen as less egregious than having any politically incorrect views on ethnicity or culture.

    [–]_EuroTrash_ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    A new president of the Bitcoin Foundation has been elected. As per r/Bitcoin tradition, let the shit throwing begin.

    [–]credibit[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    And, of course, the downvotes.