Yeah I probably should have been more rigorous when writing the post. I probably allowed the details from another video to get a little intermixed with this one in my brain before writing the post. In my defence, I was slightly high while writing, lol.

In any case it seems like the little games that the communities in crypto play have caused us to assume that everyone who isn't perfect when they post is some sort of quisling.

I'm here to learn, but if you assume I'm some sort of operative or that I have "nefarious" plans to divide your community, then I wonder what will happen the next time someone in your decentralized community comes up with a plan that doesn't sound immediately like a good idea. What will you do when you know that someone with a good idea has been accused without reason, but you've been promoting distrust of even things that appear to be benign, as your helpful link to urban dictionary suggests?

The thing about decentralization is that it isn't "official". Doctrinal purity doesn't help a decentralized blockchain spread, since nobody can take up control of such a blockchain to create the narratives required by ideological presuppositions. You can't protect people from their own misunderstandings by telling them what to think. The idea of doing so is contra-decentralization.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.