Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it’s just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it’s new (aka not “legal tender”). If you want legal money, you’ll have to specify lmao
That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?
Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I’m not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.
The American corrupt government insures your money through the FDIC, so if the bank collapses, you get to keep your money. Also, corrupt credit card companies do not force you to pay for transactions from a stolen credit card and you don’t lose money because of it.
What guarantees like those do crypto currencies have?
I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.
Their point is they don’t want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?
Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)
Oh boy you’re not gonna like my stance on morals :)
And I’m not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language… But, si je parle en francais a tu, it’s as useful as if I hadn’t talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don’t already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.
I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn’t give money any more legitimacy, it’s just you’ve decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.
Okay, but again, pretty much everything in society only has legitimacy as long as society allows it, so I’m not sure why that is especially meaningful in this discussion.
Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don’t think society sets what’s valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we’re drain swirling but that’s likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.
Society is not perfect, and it’s social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’re likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.
I’m likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I’ll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don’t mean to waste your time in case that happens.
I guess all I’m trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I’m personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that’s what I do for fun.
What do you think about that assessment of the situation?
You’re right. I have no optimism about human society since we are currently destroying the ecosystem and are doing next to nothing about it. There won’t be a human society soon barring something seriously drastic changing.
As far as the initial comment, no, I think it’s one of those “legal tender is fiat currency, don’t trust it” crypto bros or goldbugs.
Oh boy we’ve engaged nerd mode, my favorite!
Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it’s just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it’s new (aka not “legal tender”). If you want legal money, you’ll have to specify lmao
That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?
Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I’m not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.
Fine, feel free to give me both your illegitimate dollars and robux.
If they’re not legitimate, you won’t be needing them for anything… unless this is a meaning of ‘legitimate’ I was previously unaware of.
no money has inherit value, but we give it value. just like crypto.
really what is the actual difference? just because crypto is not backed by a corrupt government?
The American corrupt government insures your money through the FDIC, so if the bank collapses, you get to keep your money. Also, corrupt credit card companies do not force you to pay for transactions from a stolen credit card and you don’t lose money because of it.
What guarantees like those do crypto currencies have?
I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.
Their point is they don’t want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?
Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)
It’s as made up as morals and language and all sorts of other things that we only all agree on has meaning to us as a society.
Oh boy you’re not gonna like my stance on morals :)
And I’m not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language… But, si je parle en francais a tu, it’s as useful as if I hadn’t talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don’t already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.
I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn’t give money any more legitimacy, it’s just you’ve decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.
Okay, but again, pretty much everything in society only has legitimacy as long as society allows it, so I’m not sure why that is especially meaningful in this discussion.
Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don’t think society sets what’s valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we’re drain swirling but that’s likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.
Society is not perfect, and it’s social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’re likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.
I’m likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I’ll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don’t mean to waste your time in case that happens.
I guess all I’m trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I’m personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that’s what I do for fun.
What do you think about that assessment of the situation?
You’re right. I have no optimism about human society since we are currently destroying the ecosystem and are doing next to nothing about it. There won’t be a human society soon barring something seriously drastic changing.
As far as the initial comment, no, I think it’s one of those “legal tender is fiat currency, don’t trust it” crypto bros or goldbugs.