Yes yes, Mr .ML propagandist, tell me more about how the people who I work with, who grew up in Communist states, describe their experiences and reasons for fleeing those states are totally wrong, and that I should tow the .ML bootlicker line. Shitheels online are far more worthwhile a news source than actual people I know / interact with regularly, who lived in those countries! I can do my own online research, just like all those American dimwits who are shunning vaccines because facebook is true and doctors are fakenews!

Mmmm tastey communist boot! Comes in one size, only left shoe, because communism in practice is so wonderfully functional! And all stats produced by communist leader are true and trustworthy! All hail .ML!

Practically, there’s little they can do to win back the USA’s soft power at this point – bridges take seconds to burn, generations to build.

A starting point would be to hold the various people from the previous administration accountable for what’s gone on. That’s practically impossible, as we’ve seen them unable to hold people like Trump accountable for a literal attempted insurrection/coup the last time he was defeated at the polls. Putting people like Hegseth in front of the Hague, to answer for his war crimes in regards to killing civilians near venezuela, for example, would be a step in regaining trust from the international community (basically “We committed international crimes, and we’ll allow the international community to determine the punishment”). The USA would never do that, and has never done that historically. The democrats would never sign off on it, no matter how nazi-like the republicans may get – and the American people, even now, view themselves as exceptional/special to the point that they feel no ‘real’ accountability for the shit their government is doing.

Trade relations/integrations are screwed, as every western partner of the USA now knows/sees very clearly that the USA is just “one election cycle away” from using those very integrations to attack and destabilize their “allies”. The USA spent decades/generations building up that trust, it’ll take decades/generations of similar effort to try and rebuild it. I don’t imagine it’ll happen in my life time.

Electing Trump once may’ve been an outlier, but Americans re-elected him even as he was being transparent in his intentions to become a dictator and to dramatically re-orient America’s international position - the current administration people published project 2025, and numerous other “pro fascism” essays/books prior to the 2025 election. Vance, their VP, literally lauds people like Posobiecs work, wherein he calls for democrats to be hunted/targeted/killed. The Americans voted in favour of fucking over western allies, voted in favour of alienating the EU, Canada, Mexico, etc. They voted in favour of a guy wanting to be buddies with Putin, Kim Jong, and any other ruthless dictator he met / exchanged love letters with. They voted for a literal convicted criminal, who any person with an IQ above room temperature would realise would conduct themselves like a criminal in office – no one is shocked that he openly takes bribes and there’s overt corruption going on, because America quite explicitly voted for those things. Why would the world forgive and forget that?

To quote/paraphrase the previous person thought to be the bottom of the barrel of American leaders: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice… uh… well you can’t get fooled again, right?”. Part of that sentiment, is that if you do it the second time, knowing how things went the last time around, you’re basically accepting the result of being made a fool – you’re not getting ‘fooled’, but instead you are accepting your role as a fool by trusting the same untrustworthy group again, you’re complicit in your poor treatment. Other countries cannot trust the states again, because we’ve all been shown the states is untrustworthy, and that they’re intent on harming our people/countries. We cannot go back to ‘trusting’ the states, unless we want to do harm to our own citizens/interests.

Besides, there’s still a few more years of insults and bullshit to come from the USA. We haven’t even hit the bottom for this massive betrayal of western allies. It’s a bit early to be pretending like they have a hope of digging themselves out of this pit, while they’re still actively digging deeper.

My take on it is that socialism is still fundamentally a capitalist approach to resource distribution, while Communism does away with most private property. Some people like to try and dress it up more with ideals, but that’s the basic difference in practice – it doesn’t make sense in this context, from my pov, to talk about the imaginary “ideal” of communism, rather than the realistic implementations of it that have occurred.

So, like under communism everything is basically state owned. People who’ve lived under communism will hear things like “state owned grocery stores” and think “Oh shit, I’ve lived this – you get food stamps/allocations of food assigned by the govt, and that’s what you’re allowed to ‘buy’/‘eat’. And the govt workers will get better stamps/allocations, cause it’ll be inevitably corrupt. This is bad!”. (I’ve heard this very sentiment from people who fled communist states, when topics like Mamdani’s govt run stores comes up). Applied communism isn’t some idyllic fairytale, it’s more “The state has declared the university system too elitist, so we’re forcing you all to do back breaking labour in the fields. Refusal means firing squad”.

Under a socialist approach, you get things like private stores, honoring things like food stamps that are provided to people in need, but most of the transactions are done without government involvement. The talk of setting up government run grocery stores, is viewed more as “We want to provide a baseline that can sell food at cost, but we still want private stores too, especially for more luxury/foreign goods and other options/competition in the market. Having a market option that is providing cheap generic products should have a stabilizing effect on food prices, and downward pressure on cost of living in general for folks”. To provide these services, socialist regimes typically have higher tax rates on private citizens – but those taxes are still fundamentally driven by a capitalist system of private property and individual choice/freedom.

Helped his bank account balance…

Dude waited until the republicans became super unpopular to come forward and feign concern. Dave’s got some funny material, but this is pretty blatant pandering.

Some of the most educated people in the world, ivy league sorts, were off raping sex traffic’d children on the USA’s pedo island. They’re also the cunts running the republican party. “Education will make people moral!”. Sure buddy, sure. All evidence to the contrary.

“80% of the porn is incest rape stuff! There’s an increasing trend in “step”-sexual violence. No relation, take no action, it’s fine! Freedom to fap to violent anti-social and damaging things, just like our founding fathers wrote down in the pr0nstitution!”. And if 80% of it IS incest porn, then what the savvy kids are sneaking access to is incest porn – I’d rather they had a broader set of choices, ones that weren’t so socially conflicted/inappropriate. Ideally, porn that better highlighted healthy grown up relationships/encounters. Teach those young impressionable porn craving monkeys that you need informed consent / a willing partner, rather than romanticising something like raping your step-sister while she’s trapped in some stupid fucking appliance – just walk up, rub her with your dick, and she’ll be down! Go on, sniff your step-daughters panties, that way she’ll know you want to fuck and will become your cumslut! Ridiculous shit. Absolutely nothing wrong with porn in general, but there is something wrong with porn that depicts damaging stereotypes and tropes, because as I’ve stated – dumb monkeys emulate dumb monkey images. Like the UK’s also banning/curtailing Strangulation porn, because of upticks in issues related to it. Hell, that 16 yo who sexually assaulted and killed his stepsister, she died via strangulation – details haven’t been released, but it’s entirely plausible that he raped her and enacted a strangulation scene to boot.

Whatever dude, go fap to your incest rape porn all you want. Let other countries do better. The US’s approach is not something anyone else should emulate at this point. Go enjoy your rampant gun violence, where the standard line again from America is “A lack of gun regulations isn’t what leads to us having ridiculously high gun related violence! It’s the few bad actors that are responsible! Guns don’t kill people, people kill people! Regulation bad! Constant mass school shootings is just the acceptable price we pay for our freedumb!”.

I understand what your position is, I’m fairly sure, but I still think it’s stupid and naive. You’re living in a fantasy world. “Everyone should be an intelligent critical thinker who is able to make appropriate moral choices based on a strong internal code/monologue! They should all be smart enough to know right from wrong at 16, even though many adults still don’t seem to have that concept on lockdown, because I have declared Education!” is directly at odds with the world around you, wherein people are NOT intelligent, they are dumb monkeys.

Something like Religion, as an example, is a necessary tool to teach idiots that “Killing is bad”. You see American dimwits constantly all “Wait, if you don’t believe in god, that means you must be ok murdering people and sinning!”, because they are dumb, and incapable of the kind of thought you seem to think should be universal. There’s a subset of the population that will always be dumb monkeys. IQ’s have an average, which means half the population is dumber than the average person you know, and you’re sitting there acting like “no no, if we just magically make everyone smart enough to realise X and Y, then we don’t need to do Z!”. Dumb monkeys need guard rails and supports to properly function. And we’re not talking about some higher art form or revolutionary idea here, we’re literally talking about step dads raping their step daughters in pornography, the most base and deplorable forms of entertainment, which is consumed by the most base and stupid segments of the population. It’s the sort of shit incels watch.

As for kids being ‘allowed’ to see it, dude, seriously? Even before the internet, kids were getting porn in grade school. Again, you’re basing your take on some magical fantasy land, with kids who obey every rule, and citizens who are inherently moral.

Maybe you should worry about how the unfiltered media channels in the US has resulted in your country destroying itself, rather than try to pass judgement on other nations choices to try and support dumb-men from being coerced into being loser incel manosphere andrew tate emulating right-wing drool factories. Like the very demographic this sort of thing is looking to ‘improve the social outcomes for’ (young men), is the same one that was mobilized as the moron-voting brigade by the right-wing pedo rulers that you all chose for a leader.

As for “I just missed one netflix show”, yeah, ok, whatever, back pedal some more. You missed an award winning Netflix show, which means you missed all the award ceremony announcements associated with it. You also missed all the news that was going on about it for a couple months as they were discussing its social commentary on young boys and the manosphere, at a time when America was going full republican manosphere mode. I’m guessing you missed it because you’re in an American news bubble, which would’ve been all “We can’t publish any news about this! It’d be negative towards our republicans/right-wing, who pretty much identify as drooling manosphere cucks!”. You then basically declared that it wasn’t a thing because you hadn’t seen it – your whole country basically plugged its fucking ears and instead of addressing the issue presented by toxic masculinity, you fucktards elected toxic masculine role models who are now dismantling any respect or good will America may’ve had, threatening to genocide entire civilizations and to attack your allies. That’s where your position leads in reality.

That’s a stretch.

I noted that other countries have different approaches, which are working much better in general (it seems) than America’s current disaster. You basically admitted to not being aware of other cultures or their approaches, so you admitted your own knowledge deficiency… but then acted like it was a winning point, which is a very American thing to do: “Well, I, as an AMERICAN, don’t know this so its WRONG!” (american exceptionalism is really really weird to see still on display these days). And your position generally aligns with the thinking that lead to America’s situation, aligns with the American right-wing sentiment of “let them figure it out themselves, no social supports or regulations! Freedom! Freedom to be techno fascists!!” (techno fapists?). That’s not an approach or thought process that others should adopt.

Your comments about 16 year olds being old enough, is quite explicitly the same argument made by the Pedophile rulers of America as to why it was ok to go to Epsteins island and fuck children. If you want to think of that as a personal attack against you, because I disagree that 16 year olds are old enough to be capable of fully understanding the influence media has on them (something most american adults don’t even comprehend – see fox news as an example), then, sure, I think you’re totally wrong, and your argument is absolute shit.

Hell, the UK had a pretty big “wake the fuck up” moment with the series “Adolescence”

Never heard of it, and looking it up I don’t see any controversy surrounding it so not sure what you’re referring to here.

Considering this is a thread about a UK policy decision, you should likely familiarize yourself with other cultures approaches to things. I’m “guessing” you’re an American. If so, America’s not a great poster child to comment on any other nations approach to these sorts of topics, considering your government has basically pushed to dumb down and idiocracy-ify your population through their approach on these subjects. Adolescence was an award winning show, heavily featured on the BBC, and discussed broadly as it highlighted toxic masculinity and issues for young men. Even as a Canadian, who didn’t watch the show, I’m aware of it and its general themes/topics due to how much media attention it received. Maybe you’re just in a pro-America “Let them figure it out themself! MA FREEDOM TO FAP!!!” bubble.

Your comment about 16 year olds also smacks of American “She wasn’t a child, she was past puberty!” type reasoning.

So do you oppose DEI and representation of minorities in media then with the same gusto and ferver? Do you oppose all social programs that aim to correct systemic biases that negatively impact different demographic slices? Or on the flip side, do you think that snuff/torture films should be normalised, as they’re just ‘fantasy’ and any sane person should just ‘know’ that you shouldn’t do that sort of thing? “People’ve been dealing drugs forever, and they’re going to continue dealing drugs – it doesn’t matter if 99% of drug dealers depicted in media are black!”. It’s the same principle.

Why do you make an exception for this particular case? My guess would be that it applies more personally to you, and you find that uncomfortable, so you’re trying to defend your preferred dumb monkey content. But we’re all dumb monkeys, and we gotta look out for each other. Hell, the UK had a pretty big “wake the fuck up” moment with the series “Adolescence” about incel boys and being captured by manscape bullshit, which is in the same realm as what you’re seemingly pushing. If you recognise that the issues presented in adolescence reflect broader issues in the community, then you should realistically also accept that those ecosystems need to get regulated/changed systemically to try and resolve the problem: it isn’t up to the impressionable 16 year old kid to make sure he comes of age in a culture that provides a positive sexual environment, but rather it’s up to (presumably) adults/people like you to look out for that kids well being, and ensure he’s not being exposed to misleading tropes.

Ok, an ELI5 for you since you seem to need it:

Human beings on aggregate are dumb monkeys. When human see media depicting dumb monkeys doing something, many humans are inclined to try doing same thing.

Slightly less ELI5 – groups that advocate for things like representation of minorities in media, typically argue that negative representations of ethnic minorities results in increased racism in the general public towards those minorities, as well as the internalisation of those negative stereotypes by minorities. If, for example, black people are only ever shown in media as being gangsters and drug dealers, more black people will lean into that sort of marginalized/negative ‘professions’, and non-black people will have an inherent bias against them due to the prevalence of the stereotype. If they’re shown images/media that shows black people in positions like doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc, then more black people will aspire to emulate those images / move into those fields, and other people will be more accepting/less prejudice against them in those positions. Similarly, if men are shown a ton of step-incest porn, or porn that depicts violence towards partners, they’re more inclined to do those things. Step-incest is generally a huge negative outside of the fantasy realm, as things like a step dad + step daughter is pretty damn close to rape in many situations. Sorta like landlord porn – these things are not ok, but they get normalised through porn and then re-enacted by dumb monkeys like that idiot Ohio mayor or the dude on the cruise line who sexually assaulted and killed his step sister.

The significance of representation in media is basically an established concept. Left-wing sorts want more diverse representation because it leads to more equitable perspectives in the broader community – Right-leaning sorts often argue against more diverse representation as it chips away at what they consider ‘social norms’. Neither side argues that representation doesn’t matter, but rather, about who should be represented.

To pretend like this sort of thing doesn’t also impact porn, and/or to say that men are just idiots if they emulate things they see in porn, is to go against the idea that media representation matters, and to turn a blind eye to the stats that show these things DO impact dumb monkey behaviours. And to ignore this aspect of media, just in the case of men’s sexual urges/porn, is to do so in a way that disadvantages just men, placing all accountability onto the individual man, absolving the system/norms that have facilitated those negative activities/actions. When black people in the 80s were depicted as stereotypes, it was part of what’s generally termed systemic racism, which fed into a cycle of black people embracing those stereotypical professions. We don’t tend to hold individuals solely accountable for issues stemming from systemic wrongs. So why would we put all the blame on men, in cases when they’ve been shown step-incest porn, for emulating the tropes they’ve been taught in step-incest porn?

Besides, porn writers have just been lazy as shit in over-using that trope. You’ve got sites just reshooting the same boring tired-ass scenes with different shitty actors going through the motions, and hitting pretty much all the same poses and dialogue check boxes. Demand better from your pornographers. Hell, if pornographers were to routinely show more realistic pickups / ways to meet women outside of just “I live with you because we’re sorta related, oops my dick slipped in!”, maybe there wouldn’t be so many incel boys who can’t figure out how to approach women.

Representation matters, even in fantasy. Just ask Disney, JK Rowling, right leaning “It’s ok to be white!” advocates and left leaning “More brown Mermaids!” progressives. Though they may disagree on who should get represented, all parties involved generally agree that representation seems to matter a whole lot. To say that it doesn’t, only in the realm of (generally) cis men, would seem to me like discriminating against men – not allowing them the same social courtesy/context for forgiveness as women and other groups.

That’s my understanding of why it’s so common too.

Though I suppose there’s some reason for concern, if you’re really opposed to the concept of it. I view it sorta on the same spectrum as things like ‘facials’ and how wildly popular those have seemingly become – a filming norm from a long time ago that mostly aimed to show/prove that the guy had cum, turns into something people do regularly because they’d seen it so much in porn. Same for things like anal, or many of the more mainstream fetishes/content – it becomes largely normalized by its prevalence in porn.

Sorta like how that Dingus guy, Mayor in Ohio, got caught sniffing his step daughters panties. Dude prolly thought it’d be the start of a raunchy good time, where she catches him and then admits her lust for his old flabby limp dick dad bod.

Nah, the computers are evolving to become more resistant to meat sack interference.

I agree to some extent – I kind of look at the socialist democracies that’re around and think of them as a step in the direction of having a ‘functional’ version of a “libertarian socialist” setup. However we’re also witnessing these fail almost in real time as a result of the global turmoil currently on-going, with rights erosion and increase in authoritarian tendencies on both the political left and right.

I do think there’s a fundamental issue that is a nearly impossible hurdle for ‘proper’ anarchist states of any meaningful size to arise, which is somewhat exemplified in that Spain example. In order for a ‘state’ to exist, it basically needs to have a “force” component. People don’t always want to accept it, and it’s often an open debate on what level of force and how that force is structured in democratic setups. In Anarchist setups, it’s nearly impossible to implement, as there’ll always be dissenters from any use of force, which pretty well blocks that whole function of the government in a consensus based decision model. There also needs to be a method to incentivize/organize large groups of people to complete increasingly complex tasks the larger and more complicated/advanced the tech level of the country may be. Anarchism, from what I’ve read at least, tends to work better in smaller community setups, because there’s less need for either of these things, based on those small community goals. Sorta like the old (and horribly flawed) Marxist refrain of apple farmers and orange farmers swapping produce in a system without capital, it doesn’t really translate to something like making computer chips for advanced tech, or trading direct unskilled labour for something like a surgeon’s services.

Like for the force thing – take something like minority rights. Say some minorities decide to protest in a way that shuts down major streets in a city, demanding special treatment. In a democracy, they get given some media attention, can schedule marches etc, but they can’t illegally shut down businesses / regular day to day life, without running the risk of having the state apply force for their illegal behaviour – cops should show up and force a resolution. If those cops could only show up after a consensus is reached by all parties, including the protesting minorities, then a group like MAGA could basically sit there not compromising on their demands, and inflicting pain on their neighbors/others without a care in the world. Spain’s inability to mount a defense against fascists in the 1930s, was basically the result of them not being able to get a consensus in this sort of regard – you couldn’t get them to all agree to defend the country against franco/hitlers invading force, because some were in favour of it, so no action was taken (except by Durruti’s militia). (and yes, that sort of thing clearly happens in failed democracies like the USA still to some extent, so it’s a problem that goes beyond ‘just’ anarchist decision models – but it’s yet to hit them in an existential way)

Yeah – though in all fairness, we haven’t seen too many larger implementations of its principles. Some other guy was whining that I’d missed some regional sub-states/failed revolution attempts for example, but that’s the best he could find to counter my ‘only spain so far has tried it’ note. The sample size is stupid small, so it’s a bit dicey to draw definitive conclusions.

I guess you could argue that things like Durruti’s struggle to get support qualifies as an internal problem – like a government/large group, making decisions on consensus, is much more difficult to motivate in any particular direction even when existentially threatened by an outside force. But ultimately, without that outside force, the CNT likely would’ve continued to meet the basic needs of people in the country in line with the anarchist principles it was based on. Bit of a mixed bag.

Afaik, Ukraine was a failed attempt to setup an Anarchist government. Rojava and Chiapas are not realistically established enough to qualify as a case study so much, they’re also not countries, but general regions/states within countries. As sub-regions protected within and by a state, they benefit from the state while putting on airs of being anti-state: much like a parents-basement dwelling neckbeard sort, who rants online against capitalism, while enjoying the benefits provided by their parents participating in that system, and who’s lifestyle is wholly dependent on the system they oppose. Anarchist principles often function ‘ok’ for smaller communities, but they struggle/fail once attempted as a full government of a country – Spains the only example I know of in that regard.

Spains attempt lasted ‘roughly’ 30 years, with the movement starting in the 1870s, the CNT coming in sometime around 1905 or so, and Franco fucking it all up around 1936-1939, give or take?

I worked in an anarchist bookstore for a few years after uni, where I read books about anarchist history, and the Spanish attempt. That’s what I base my comments on. And, yea, Rojava and Chiapas are so ‘new’ that no one had bothered to write about them at that time. So really, they don’t seem like examples worth mentioning, other than to be a little shite online.

Read up on Spain pre-Franco, which was the only time that an Anarcho-state was seriously attempted. It basically coagulated into an Anarcho-syndicate, but failed miserably at getting many traditional ‘state’ responsibilities covered. When Franco rolled in with the backing of Hitler, Durruti was the only guy that tried to mount a defense, because the “government” couldn’t come to a consensus on whether to defend themselves or not. Durruti had to literally raid government weapons stocks to arm a militia to try and fight back, but that totally failed and then they ended up as a fascist steel production center feeding arms to Nazi germany.

So that’s about how it goes in practice. It’s a style of government that’s good in theory, but it fails when implemented, generally due to ever present outside influences. It’s on the same sort of pedestal as communism really, in that lots of folks look at it on paper and think it sounds great, but reality’s a bitch.

The way I look at it is that cryptocurrency is basically a security with no real use, but it can store ‘value’ in the same way those NFT things stored value for a while. There are more bullshitters for crypto, so they’ll keep that hype train going longer, and you can semi work it to get some profit by buying the security low, and selling it high.

There was a post a while ago about how around something like 2020 or whatever, with billions invested in it, and with huge amounts of power/electricity going towards it, bitcoin had something like less than 10 transactions per minute globally. Like it’s absolute dogshit when ti comes to transactions, in part because it’s not a currency despite its name.

Currencies need to depreciate in value via inflation – crypto tends to just store value and go up / down solely on its isolated demand as a nebulous concept. In fact, one of the bragging points from cryptobros is often this misguided notion that crypto is a hedge against inflation – as that ‘benefit’ basically disqualifies it as a proper currency. If you get $1000, and that $1000 is able to buy you some quantity of goods, you need that money to be able to buy less of those goods in the future in order to encourage people to actually use the fucking thing. If you had $1000, but were almost assured that it would be able to buy twice as many goods in the future if you just held on to it for a bit under your mattress, you wouldn’t spend the money… ever. Sorta like those crazy early crypto experiments where uni students were given like 25 bitcoin to see how they’d spend it – and a bunch did exactly what you said in your opening bit, bought pizzas (you could at the time). Bet they would’ve preferred to buy a bunch of houses and sports cars later on, if they’d realised how popular the fad would get. Bitcoin only tends to go ‘down’ in value when people completely exit the currency, so it’s not a valid currency.

I think you’re generally right in your note about it needing to be exchanged. The whole point of currencies is that you don’t want them to sit idle under someone’s bed. Banks/Credit Unions provide savings accounts that pay interest, though typically slightly less than inflation. This is basically a function where because of inflation, you don’t want to have your money just sit under your bed, you want to invest it in at least a savings account/term deposit – but what’s actually happening there, is that you’re committing your money to the financial institution for a fixed period, and they’re subsequently loaning that out to someone so that person can buy a house (typically) – and then their payments on that house, is what generates your interest earnings (and the banks profits). The house itself is a security, with a general stable/safe valuation, so if that person can’t make their payments on the house, the bank can foreclose, sell it, and still pay you your interest. So your savings are generally very safe – especially, frankly, with simple/smaller financial institutions that aren’t trying to do fancy bullshit / aren’t doing any higher risk wealth management type back end tricks. Main point being though, that because of inflation, even people who have ‘too much’ capital, put it into the market, and it generates economic activity as a result.

Crypto, being a security, doesn’t behave too well in this situation either – in that you can’t realistically hold a security and pay interest on it based on being able to use that security to fund other economic activity. Sorta like if someone hands you 10 shares of a stock (which has a variable price), and you’ve gotta figure out a way to pay that person back 12 shares of stock in a year, buy giving those 10 shares to someone else. What if they don’t want shares of that stock? What if the stock price goes down, or up, significantly? There’s just an absurd amount of risk, that would be considered wildly untenable for something like a person’s core savings vehicle. There are some “interest paying” crypto type accounts these days, but that’s a whole shitload of financial shenanigans and cryptobro bullshit. Cryptocurrencies are basically an economic blackhole.

And speaking of governments, anyone saying that crypto is useful because you can send money globally, is a moron. Banks/Financial institutions have the ability to do global money transfers with ease. The reason they can’t/don’t, is because of LEGAL reasons and regulatory restrictions from governments - it’s not some technical restriction that crypto magically solves. Laws like “You can’t let people fund terrorist groups”. Crypto being able to do those sorts of things quickly is just a matter of them not obeying any of the laws or regulations from governments. That’s not a ‘good’ thing in general. Many of the recent pushes from crypto sorts to get places like the States to recognize them, are basically resulting in banks getting less restrictions – which really isn’t a win. Crypto shows up and is like “We like sending money to north korea, so you gotta remove or neuter that whole know your customer thing for fintechs. Here Mr USA administration, we can pay you by buying millions of dollars of your personal ‘crypto currency’ to help with signing the bill. See, isn’t it so much better to have no regulations/oversight on transactions?! It’s win win!”

And the last negative I’ll note, from my pov at least, is that the core mechanics of most crypto currencies is obfuscated and controlled by cryptobros. Financial industry people make money, but they don’t make the sort of explosive, concentrated wealth that you see occur in crypto for the people who maintain those systems. That’s partly because the financial industry is larger, and involves government components – while crypto currencies are often just some techbro goin “let’s fork bitcoin and stick a dog face on it and sell it to morons for big $$$$ then we can FTX it up fuckin in the bahamas with uggos!”. It’s the sort of obvious conflict of interest that they all try and bullshit their way out of – one that typically doesn’t exist in fiat setups, due to the multiple layers, and the role most govs fill in regulating things.

Ah, yea, my bad. I’ll remove/edit it a chunk – that was sorta a cross post as I’d figured you were responding to a more recent post about Canada’s india deals. Wish lemmy provided more context sometimes in the reply snippets.