I don't think it's such a large grain of salt. Most people here have investments.
I'm just curious if you see any difference between talking about something and pitching it.
Seattle, in
#5↑ is pitching a fantasy. Most of the conversationalism about his narrative is internal, easily presupposing through and around what would otherwise be important issues, such as the presupposition that the means of exchange in society should be immune from societal policy, or ahistorical presupposition about capitalistic and bourgeois behavior
vis à vis pretenses of abundance.
It's like his opening line, "Traditionally we have been in an inflation/debt system". That may or may not be accurate, but we don't know because it appears to be make-believe, an unreliable dichotomy that just happens to be convenient in the moment. Or perhaps it's something he gets from a software CEO and Bitcoin enthusiast; it's hard to know, without more reliable citation, but perhaps it comes from Jeff booth, who, per Seattle, "has written a lot about this along with others but I think this idea is pretty accurate but that's only as accurate as predicting the future can be".
Every paragraph of that post is not simply weird or flawed, the whole thing is just kind of bizarre. In order:
• What is that inflation/debt dualism? The words, "I think", are doing all the lifting in the second paragraph. The third is carried by the words, "should", "if", and "if". Another "if" in the fourth, which is entirely speculative according to a whole lot of if and should. The three sentences of the fifth paragraph might make sense to Seattle, but the rest of us have to speculate on his behalf in order to imagine what he means. The sixth is entirely presumptuous, such that it's hard to know where to start, but we ought not presuppose the debasement of national currency is a good thing, and, moreover, the part about, "but it's not in your face as is the case in many 3rd world countries", is entirely internalized, and is more a persuasive statement than expository—i.e., it's pitch language. The seventh paragraph is similarly internalized, and just as an example we might wonder how many people in Africa are using how much of how many bitcoins. The eighth paragraph observes its own priority, and seems largely make-believe. The ninth is a statement of inevitability that would appear to describe a surrender of the public trust to a private-sector altruism not only unseen in capitalism, but denounced as antithetical. Namedropping Jeff Booth in the tenth is almost useless, a fallacious albeit thin appeal to authority Eleven, twelve, and thirteen are internalized; we might be able to discern his meaning if we know any of the reference points upon which the rest of the post was based, but we don't: Eleven is a generalized truism that could work with elephants and cheese, or mozzarella sticks and watching paint dry, or any number of seemingly irrelevant juxtapositons.¹ Twelve is internalized. Thirteen is perversely perfect, the craven nothingness of the line, and accentuated by the exclamation point that lends the sentence, and, really, the whole pitch, that dubious feeling that came with watching youth preachers of my time trying to convince the young people that Jesus was a cool rebel, and it's hip to have faith. It's an interesting topic? What is the topic? How Bitcoin will save the world?
It is, to say the least, an interesting post.²
Now things get complicated.
†
It is actually more difficult than it should be to describe James R's performance as comedy, but it's also true it feels that way; it gets complicated, though, and thus is not the best explanation for what we see. If we go back to December, we find James R doing the vested interest bit; he was picking on a
particular statement↗, and that after
razzing↗ him earlier for what "sounds like an advertisement".
Consider a dualism: If James is wrong, does that mean Seattle is correct? Of course not. I don't think Seattle's
strange statement about Bitcoin↗ establishes the institutional definition of vested interest, but I do get the idea in a more colloquial context. Seattle's posts about Bitcoin are laden with pitch language, to the point that he reads like an advocate.
Comparatively, and
vis à vis particular developments in this thread, I might not find Sarkus' discussion of cryptocurrency convincing, but there is a clear difference in tone and focus. Sarkus reads like someone hopeful about a cryptocurrency future; Seattle reads like an advocate.
(
Note aside: How subtle is this getting, or perhaps we should consider how subtle we wish to get. There is a certain amount that stands out, seems kind of apparent at first read; if the hard part is explaining each and every one of those details, part of that difficulty is in comprehending the context of each point individually and collectively, which, it is important to remind, is a dynamic expression perpetually revising in accord with new data input. Still, though, some other things really do stand out.)
While you list some of your investments, I would suggest that
ceteris paribus is not in effect. If I imagine some political interest to assign you, I end up focusing on what you might think your interests are in mushing up the discourse; for instance, I don't recall you being so zealously focused.
In my time, sometimes people include themselves with infamy in order to oppose someone or something else. It happens a lot in discussions about other people's human rights, when some who would otherwise think themselves not of a particular crowd will include themselves in order to complain about being defamed or denigrated.
That's not quite what you're doing, but I do think it would be strange if you're not suggesting some sort of false equivalence: Do you really think your writing is no different than Seattle's?
It's not mere matters of style³, but that our neighbor's easy, conversational presentation is built around unsupported presupposition, much of which is crackpottery. It's not quite a gish gallop, but the effect is similar: If we take the time to address everything awry, that can become all we do. We might not look at it like religious evangelization, but it is similar; the main difference is that it's not theistic. Even more, though, Seattle's posts about Bitcoin are really focused. Compare James R's
three-point summary↑ about disclosure with two considerations: First, someone of Seattle's education, experience, and intelligence ought not need that reminder; part of it all is argumentative time-wasting. Second, Seattle's pretense of confusion, such as
#53↑, "Why do you keep implying that I am encouraging people to buy Bitcoin?" is absurd.
Here, let me attempt his defense: He's not really pitching Bitcoin, but, rather, simply communicating and expressing in the only way he knows how, so honor diversity and lay off. And if that version sounds condescending, it's not that I'm trying to be, but now we see why I ought not write his defense. If he spent his career in sales, and this manner of communication has become praxis, then no, he's not really trying to pitch Bitcoin so specifically. But isn't that a rather specific presupposition for someone else to conceive of and then grant him, especially compared to the idea that Seattle has no idea why his posts about Bitcoin read like a pitch?
Seattle has interest in normalizing cryptocurrency in general and Bitcoin in particular; discursively, that's not really a big deal. But his pitch language stands out; the political and advertising language of persuasion, as well as design or lack thereof resulting in a string of discursive points that do not necessarily flow from one to another, becomes hard to not notice.
Once upon a time, someone acknowledged to me that they were a participant in their local Republican Party, which isn't disqualifying, but it certainly did explain his penchant for reciting talking points. If people were better at supporting their bullet points and mythopoeia, certain associations or mere appearances would matter less.
I don't know what to tell people about colloquy; proverbially, everybody uses it but nobody ... what, likes it? ... understands it? And the idea of James R razzing someone in this way is apparently rarefied. And our neighbor, Seattle, "How is talking about Bitcoin encouraging people to buy Bitcoin?" is duplicitous. Unless he's not.
But I also think there's a difference: It's not all the same from one member or post to the next.
____________________
Notes:
¹ For the record, it doesn't work with golf and gay sex because we eventually run into a no-true-scotsman fallacy. I blame alliteration.
²
cf. "cryptocurrencies" #137↗ (November, 2022): Seattle in re benefits of Bitcoin, "Anyway, it's an interesting subject."
³
see, in re "style", #
3592788 (Aug. 2019)↗,
3607598 (Nov. 2019)↗,
3681684 (Aug. 2021)↗,
3702361 (Aug. 2022)↗,
3703472 (Sep. 2022)↗,
3703483 (Sep. 2022, twice in one day)↗,
3709400 (Jan. 2023)↗.
