Groups are defined by both their positive and negative visions of an identity.
Bitcoiners disagree on many things but there are points on which they do agree, for example:
Positive: Low time preference, strong work ethic, family oriented, disciplined, generous to those deserving, pro human flourishing.
Negative: anti war, anti scam/fraud, opposed to parasitism, against censorship.
When someone purporting to be a Bitcoiner goes against principles of the shared identity, it’s healthy to call out improper behaviour and shame the individual.
Whether that’s some fucktard cheering on a stupid war or someone leaving their wife and child to bang an ethot - an identity has to have boundaries. To be coherent, to build alliances, to weed out bad actors, to maintain direction and to give outsiders a vision and identity they would want to adopt.
Anti-identity behaviours will always occur. Those things need to stay in the shadows, and when exposed they need to be vigorously opposed - that’s how societies have always dealt with these things.
They stay in the shadows so the group doesn’t continuously feast on its own, and when exposed they’re opposed to maintain the boundaries of the identity so that others don’t try to normalise the behaviour.
The Bitcoiner identity has been loosely there for some time and will harden as adherents are more attacked.
It will only grow if, as a group, it is able to maintain its definition by rejecting the negative, embracing the positive, and appealing to outsiders who are willing to adhere to both.
quoting“Identities are kind of like memes, they can go viral. The more momentum a particular identity picks up, the more attractive it becomes to others.
note1rqg…wrsd
If you’re an activist, fighting to establish your particular identity story as the pre-eminent one in a given domain, how do you maintain coherent definitions of your group? Of who exactly is us, and who is not?”
- Darryl Cooper, MartyrMade Podcast