I wonder why all the libertarian freedom loving crypto guys keep backing fascists

It’s not your freedom they care about.

victorbjorklund an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they are not really true liberterians. They are more ”I wanna be free from rules but I want more rules for others”

▲

sardine5 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Christopher Harborne - not just a libertarian freedom loving crypto guy, but also the largest single shareholder of QinetiQ, a pretty notable UK Defence company.

▲

Finnucane 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they're not as much 'freedom loving' as they are 'selfish dicks.'

▲

cyberax 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're idiots. They think that they just need to be buddies with the leading fascist and they're going to be golden. They don't have enough knowledge or curiosity to study what happened EVERY time this was attempted.

Hint: you might be buddies with the big fascist now, but this can change at any moment. And then you're just fodder for his _other_ cronies. Oh, and don't forget that even if you think that you're adept at court intrigue and covert ops, your _children_ might not be so skilled. Will they retain your fortune when the big fascist suddenly decides to... reallocate... some of their wealth?

▲

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not hard to figure out, the fascists have been more explicitly welcoming to crypto freedom or at least put themselves out there to solicit that vote even if you claim their underlying policies aren't. Trump offered the freedom of Ross Ulbricht at the libertarian convention, did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything?

	▲	ToucanLoucan a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you back fascists to promote crypto, your values are fucked.
	▲	lostlogin an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything? I thought that offering ‘not Trump’ would be enough. I was very wrong.

▲

mythrwy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

gverrilla an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How are you this confident while being this ignorant?

▲

hilariously an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Damn, you got them all, there's been no rise of right wing populism glorifying hitler, the end of democratic institutions, the rise of dictatorial leaders, and expulsion of "foreigners" up to and including concentration camps at all recently, its just all losers with purple hair screeching.

▲

dgellow an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fascist is descriptive and makes perfect sense here

	▲	mindslight an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Seriously. Moldbug (Yarvin), who is intellectually upstream of the tech-authoritarian movement, explicitly claimed the term reactionary and spent so many words strawmanning concerns about fascism he de facto claimed that term as well. And either term is a hell of a lot more accurate than "conservative", which [unfortunately] continues to be in use as an emotional fig leaf over what is actually a radical agenda of destruction.

▲

nemo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every time I see someone pearl-clutching about speaking honestly about fascists, my mental picture is unsympathetic as well. "Fascist" may be inflammatory but it's certainly not inaccurate. Fascists are a real part of the world, trying to language police them away doesn't work.

▲

kg an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It may make you uncomfortable to learn this but fascists - actual ones - are currently active in politics! My hair isn't dyed, for what it's worth.

We could argue over the definition of fascism and which politicians fit it which might be more productive than accusing posters of being depressed.

	▲	TFNA 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fascism is a political phenomenon of the early twentieth century. There are no current politicians who are operating in the early twentieth century. So, to speak of “currently active fascists” is anachronistic. Typically at some point in the discussion someone will cite Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, but other people do not have to accept his extension of the term past its sell-by date. For the people currently active in politics who espouse heinous policies sometimes (and sometimes not) reminiscent of fascism, then advocate against those policies directly. Using such a vague umbrella term, and one interpreted by many as a distinct cultural shibboleth, isn’t likely to win over the people you need in order to prevail.
	▲	mythrwy 35 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That is one option. Another is we discuss actual policy positions rather than using presumed pejoratives to brand everyone who doesn't agree with us as "literally Hitler!".

▲

ratelimitsteve 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

if you're in with the fascists they are the most liberty-oriented party. you can do whatever you want, entirely without regard to the law.

	▲	mrguyorama an hour ago \| parent [-]
		But this has never been true. Lots of valuable, productive, and loyal Nazis ended up in political prisoner camps. Because that kind of kleptocracy runs on constantly fighting factions and incentives and selfishness. The core belief is selling someone else down the river because you can.