this OpEd reads as intellectually dishonest. 2 Qs:

1 why is it fine for women to be single-issue voters on abortion but not for others to be on crypto?

2 how is it fine to twist the pro-crypto stance from “supporting economic freedom” to “selfish financial interests”?

answer seems to be in the last paragraph

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

political overreach is a broader societal and ethical concern though

uwu~ agwimony-chan is insane wike aww the powew usews, but at weast she's highew than evewyone ewse! >w<

i’m not here to opine on political overreach (separate convo) but if the article is about political overreach, then title it as such.

instead the article reads as an intellectually dishonest portrayal of the crypto space and the motivations of pro-crypto voters.

would appreciate if you weighed in on my 2 questions!

Seemed rhetorical to me heh:

No it isn't fine

The article ultimately suggests a simplified one dimensional view of the issue, which ultimately is what happens in a binary partisan system

Most people vote selfishly ofc but this holds true for crypto or carbon tax. Seems silly to paint it as a pro crypto problem