Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me over Iran missile story

Post by beepbooptheory » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:40 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #711

beepbooptheory wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small nit but you probably don't mean to say that you are a "capitalist" here, even if you maybe own some significant capital. Not because its wrong, but it's not what your trying to appeal to (ideological commitment). A "capitalist" can believe in anything really, they are such by virtue of their relation to the overall economy. Its kinda like saying "I'm a digestor of food" instead of "a patron of restaurants." You…

I'm a "capitalist" in the sense that I think markets that allow people to exchange private capital create the better outcomes for society for society than other types of economic systems. I'm also a "liberal."

Post by cortesoft » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:44 PM UTC

waffletower wrote: post #638

zeckalpha wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Smith actually would be against stuff like this. He gets misrepresented.

It really doesn't matter here, in specific, if he is misrepresented. He came up with the "invisible hand" concept and he didn't consider its shadow/consequences. He shouldn't be personally faulted for it, he was just one man sharing his thinking a long time ago. Living people are to blame for not correcting for these shortcomings enough. I learned that it would have been best to have just said laissez-faire capitalis…

Post by cortesoft » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:45 PM UTC

waffletower wrote: post #704

kasey_junk wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ll not find “the invisible hand” in wealth of nations as a major concept. It was a throw away phrase that wasn’t a central part of his writing.

So many Smith apologists. I don't believe he should be demonized, and perhaps I am guilty of this by mentioning his name and 'satanic' in the same sentence, but he decidedly should not be lionized either. So many are drunk with history and shirk the work to evolve and transcend it. It doesn't matter if Adam Smith had morality and consideration, those are not ideals his writing ultimately bred, what matters are the fr…

Post by mvdtnz » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:46 PM UTC

coppsilgold wrote: post #750

At the time of the threats the odds were likely very skewed, as in over 99% to one side. For events where a single article could be a fulcrum, it seems like a feasible strategy to wager on the 1% and then try to manipulate the writer into changing the outcome. The chances of success will be low, but likely higher than 1% therefore the expected value[1] may be high. Most people on Polymarket are gamblers and have no i…

Post by Eisenstein » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:49 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #758

margalabargala wrote: post #624

As someone generally against gambling, I think there's a fair point to be made that Polymarket and similar sites are not fundamentally different from e.g. sports betting. The issue of bribing/threatening a sports player to throw a game has existed for over a century. It's not a new problem. The only thing special about Polymarket is the expansion of surface area. My preferred solution would be to just ban it all, or…

Banning it sends it underground into the hands of organised crime, which will still have access to modern technology. There's going to be a net loss, but it's probably better to regulate it than have another war on drugs.