Quote from: Coinseeker on May 08, 2013, 09:37:44 PM

Quote from: Flanelcoin on May 08, 2013, 12:10:10 PM

Quote from: Coinseeker on May 07, 2013, 12:45:38 AM

Might I suggest to some, instead of ignorantly dismissing these folks as outdated hacks, you take this opportunity to refine your arguments. So far, I have barely heard a reasonable argument to anything they've said. Just dismissive rhetoric. That is childish behavior and if the Bitcoin community is hoping to go up against the legislators and economists of the world, YOU better know what YOU'RE talking about. Passion and belief does not make a winning argument, because even outdated hacks can tear most of you novices to pieces in a round table discussion like this.

They mentioned Paul Krugman. Yeah, the Pulitzer winning economist. While I couldn't disagree more with MOST of their statements, simply disagreeing isn't going to win any debates against minds like Paul Krugman. If you're not prepared to step on that stage, might I suggest remaining quite, as to not make the whole of Bitcoin look like a bunch of whining elementary kids, playing around with their "hacker science project." It only serves to help their arguments. Just saying...

/rant over

Many have tried but discussion is a blatant waste of time, perhaps the worst one. Have you seen the people on the show? Have you heard Paul "animal spirits" Krugman talking? These people are not by the slightest interested in the truth, or even in consistency, or even in discussion.

You do not argue with these people. They are NOT going to listen and they are NOT going to pay attention to your arguments, even if you have a paper signed by God himself to be the absolute truth embedded in the nature of our universe. They have killed in themselves their ability to pursue truth in order to achieve certain power positions.

So you do NOT waste energy by debating them: doing so will cause them to raise their voices and interrupt you, and not let you talk.
What you do is quietly doing and proving to the world that what you do actually works well.

Oh, and keep in mind the reasons why we laugh away and disregard these people: their "arguments" are not well-shaped but perhaps erroneous products of a certain school of thought. No, they are bottom-up designed in order to influence the actions of people. Punchlines. Use the words "antisocial", "society", "together", just like you can use words like "fatherland", "God", "freedom and democracy" and you might push certain emotional buttons.
As soon you realize that these arguments are not thoughts but instruments that have little to do with truth, you will understand why lies persist in politics.

It's not about convincing them (the Paul Krugman's) that it's truth, it's about being able to have the intelligent debate on the same stage. It's about the people listening to that debate and them deciding, who they believe. It's certainly not about turning your "rivals" into supporters, although that would be a nice bonus.

Again this is why I think professional PR is needed. So you have intelligent, well versed campaigns to fight back against the rhetoric. It's just like a lawyer. He doesn't defend himself in court, he hires another attorney so the emotion can be removed from the equation (which all of us have toward Bitcoin) and the clear, concise talking points can be delivered in opposition of such half-truths, misguidedness and outright lies. Dismissing the power and influence these people have over the populous again in my opinion, is naive at best.

EDIT: And don't get me wrong, I understand why people laugh and I'm not saying it's not justified, it's just not productive in the overall conversation.

1) CHILL OUT. Bitcoin will be fine without "professional PR people". Many people are smart: they read about it, figure out how it works and invest in it. Regarding public relations: if you knew more about PR, you'd know that there are 4 possible states that an idea can exist in, defined by 2 axes: Known/Unknown and Positive/Negative. 3 combinations are fine: Known/Positive, Unknown/Positive, and Unknown/Negative. A problem only arises when you get Known/Negative. You may proceed in several directions depending on which problem you are faced with. In some cases, having LESS publicity is the fix for a PR problem. I find it plausible that bitcoin could benefit from less publicity at some point in the future (we're not selling shoes to dumb kids, are we?). I'm not advocating any particular strategy, merely pointing out that this issue is a bit more nuanced that you seem to state.

2) You won't "argue on the same stage as Paul Krugman" - he's part of an elaborately constructed academic system and tradition that has gained legitimacy over hundreds of years. Certain aspects of that system specifically misrepresent facts "for the public good". Arguing within that realm serves no purpose. It's like arguing with a Christian fundamentalist in a church. They'll keep quoting the bible, and you'll keep trying to bring in FACTS and CRITICAL THINKING. If Krugman can claim that the statement "we live in an era of wildly irresponsible money printing, with runaway inflation just around the corner" is a CONSPIRACY THEORY, it's impossible to argue with him at all about money. Furthermore, he has ZERO incentive to argue anyone about bitcoin specifically - that would just give free publicity to the currency, and further discredit his poorly researched blatherings on the topic (yep, even Nobels can be lazy).