> So I guess we know which SEC commissioner is a crypto-bagholder then.
I've seen this kind of argument all over different forums recently, and I find it bizarre:
1. Someone posts a reasonable, logical point on a particular topic.
2. Someone else disagrees, and instead of finding fault with the argument, they make the comment "poster must just be a member of <tribe I disagree with>".
To be blunt, it makes your argument incredibly weak. It makes me think you are the type of person who is so wedded to your tribalism that you can't fathom that other people can have logical thoughts that are not based on their tribal membership.
I may think 99% of crypto deserves to die in a fire, but I thought this was very well-reasoned commentary by the SEC commissioner.
I've seen this kind of argument all over different forums recently, and I find it bizarre:
1. Someone posts a reasonable, logical point on a particular topic.
2. Someone else disagrees, and instead of finding fault with the argument, they make the comment "poster must just be a member of <tribe I disagree with>".
To be blunt, it makes your argument incredibly weak. It makes me think you are the type of person who is so wedded to your tribalism that you can't fathom that other people can have logical thoughts that are not based on their tribal membership.
I may think 99% of crypto deserves to die in a fire, but I thought this was very well-reasoned commentary by the SEC commissioner.