> Are we expecting people not to change their position and make them feel guilty if they did?
Nobody is trying to make you feel guilty.
However, having earlier attempted to shut down the kind of discussion you now say you want, it’s not surprising people aren’t available to have that discussion with you now.
> No wonder communities are more polarized than ever.
I don’t see this as encouraging people to discuss solving the Bitcoin energy problem.
> We should be discussing about how to efficiently harness that big fiery ball in space instead of shutting down technological advancements.
Here it seems like you are making another attempt to close discussion of Bitcoin’s energy problem by saying we should be discussing solar energy instead.
This is probably part of why you got accused of whataboutism.
> However, having earlier attempted to shut down the kind of discussion you now say you want,
I am encouraging since beginning to have discussion other than "Bitcoin is bad because of its energy". I suggested Solar you could have come up with some thing else. But I don't see any suggestion from your end.
> It’s not surprising you aren’t getting it.
Projecting on me maybe?
> I don’t see this as encouraging people to discuss solving the Bitcoin energy problem.
I am just pointing out that it's the behavior like yours that encourages polarization. I don't see how that prevents people from discussing?
> This is probably part of why you got accused of whataboutism.
You don't read the full comments, do you? I actually thought you were making some sense when you pointed out the flaw in my argument in your first comment but now I think you just want to troll.
@zepto I do agree with the last section of your child comment to this thread. I can't reply to it. I had no idea that there is limit to hierarchy of comments in HN.
>> I don’t see this as encouraging people to discuss solving the Bitcoin energy problem.
> I am just pointing out that it's the behavior like yours that encourages polarization.
Is it?
> I don't see how that prevents people from discussing?
It doesn’t but when you accuse people of causing polarization, you discourage them from wanting to do so with you.
> This is probably part of why you got accused of whataboutism.
> You don't read the full
comments, do you?
You don’t explain why you think this.
> I actually thought you were making some sense when you pointed out the flaw in my argument in your first comment but now I think you just want to troll.
I’m just pointing out that you didn’t act like someone who wanted to discuss the bitcoin energy problem, and so people aren’t likely to do so with you.
The fact that you changed your position isn’t enough for you to win back any trust on this, especially since you haven’t offered anything to the discussion except that.
My suggestion is that if you really want to discuss the energy problem, you try again later somewhere else, but this time:
1. start out by saying that, rather than the opposite.
2. Keep the focus on the energy problem with Bitcoin, rather than how to generate more energy.
That will help you to avoid being accused of whataboutism.
3. Avoid accusing people of trolling or ‘causing polarization’.
Nobody is trying to make you feel guilty.
However, having earlier attempted to shut down the kind of discussion you now say you want, it’s not surprising people aren’t available to have that discussion with you now.
> No wonder communities are more polarized than ever.
I don’t see this as encouraging people to discuss solving the Bitcoin energy problem.
> We should be discussing about how to efficiently harness that big fiery ball in space instead of shutting down technological advancements.
Here it seems like you are making another attempt to close discussion of Bitcoin’s energy problem by saying we should be discussing solar energy instead.
This is probably part of why you got accused of whataboutism.