Re:Bitcoin could cost us our clean-energy future
by thisisit on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @12:49AM
(#15858857)
So...saying (but what) "about the energy usage of video games and porn" is not whataboutism? Got it.
Re:Bitcoin could cost us our clean-energy future
by colordrops on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @01:02AM
(#15858906)
No. As I tried to explain, whataboutism is to distract from the topic to avoid addressing the issue, which is not what I am doing here. What I am saying is that no one sees any problem with using energy on porn and video games, and I think Bitcoin has as much utility as those, so I don't see why anyone has a problem with its energy usage either.
My point is that sometimes pointing out people's narrow-minded tunnel vision, in this case applying an inconsistent standard to something they dislike, is mistaken as whataboutism.
Now if I thought Bitcoin's energy usage was a bad thing, this would be whataboutism, but I do not.
Re:Bitcoin could cost us our clean-energy future
by thisisit on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @01:10AM
(#15858942)
In my first post, just after the whataboutism I have explained why this has happened. You cannot attach yourself to a metric which Bitcoin did with energy and then complain saying - attaching energy metric is wrong/unfair to us.
Pron and Games didn't do that to themselves. Still I digress.
That's not whataboutism, that's calling out inconsistent logic by detractors.