There's absolutely nothing wrong...


Posted on Gab by Empress Wife

P.S. Apparently this blog has been attacked by professional downvoter. And, somehow, one his downvote was enough to outweigh several upvotes thus making several posts hidden. Some messages had to be resposted. Thanks to all who had upvoted the original ones and thanks again for upvoting the reposts.


Comments 101


"I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
SOURCE

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR TERRITORY

22.01.2020 15:43
0

Thanks again for your help and for the moral support.

22.01.2020 21:18
0

You might find this interesting,

Upvotes on posts with declined payout will still affect your rep.

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@moeknows/some-interesting-facts-about-reputation-on-steemit

22.01.2020 21:30
0

Also, if you set your default rewards to "decline payout" this will immunize you to downvotes.

Supporters can still send yu steem, and or steeemdelegations.

22.01.2020 15:52
0

This would be supporting the dishonor that this platform supports.
We could use Facebook and send each other bitcoin too, avoiding Steem altogether. But we don't want to do that. We want a platform that supports Free Speech, and doesn't discriminate and attack your finances when an angry whale decides to take your 'rewards' away ;)

22.01.2020 19:13
0

I agree. The downvoter in this case is actually a pretty small fish (12,236.461 steempower).

I'm just trying to help "stop the bleeding" so to speak.

22.01.2020 19:19
0

Thanks for the advise. I'll try that. The rewards were hardly any rewards (and now, thanks to this SOB there won't be any at all), so that's not a big deal. This freak appears to be looking for and voting down everything I post regardless of the contents (including comments to other posts). If I can keep posting and commenting without fear that this vengeful jerk votes me down to a negative reputation - that's sure worth losing a few satoshi in steem rewards.

22.01.2020 21:07
0

And hopefully we can boost you out of your 8 rep!

Downvoters with lower rep than you have no effect on your rep, so if we can get you above the default of 25, then most of the small-fry downvotes won't cause you any problems.

22.01.2020 21:20
0

Grow some thicker skin, nothing quite as pathetic as someone needing "moral support" because someone on the internet chose to express themselves by downvoting.

Hope you find the
O no, I'm hurt by what others think of what I post club and get all your support.

23.01.2020 16:35
0

My understanding is that downvotes are not to be used to "virtue signal" simple differences of opinion. That's what the "mute" button is for.

Downvoting is free-speech in the exact same way that shouting down a speaker in public is free-speech.

23.01.2020 19:46
0

It is free speech, you seem to think that the public speaker is entitled to only certain kind of expression/ response from the audience.

Bottom line is that freedom of expression ain't for everyone, especially those f#&k that would dare shout.

folkingfolk

23.01.2020 19:57
0

This is the first time I've actually spoken to someone who openly advocates for SJW tactics.

23.01.2020 20:10
0

Yeah, I'm advocating for certain tactics by ridiculing the thought that free speech doesn't include booing, which you don't seem interested in the least about, instead you're busy taking this conversation about freedom of speech (especially the speech you hate) and turning it into something completely idiotic, like what you think about me.

23.01.2020 20:41
0

Booing is not speech. A cow can Moo, but that is not speech.

(IFF) you are advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) you are advocating for SJW tactics.

(IFF) you are NOT advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) please simply explain what you ARE advocating for.

23.01.2020 20:49
0

Booing is speech. Holding a poster is speech, it is regardless of what you think includes speech, much wiser and infinitely sharper minds than you have concluded this a long time ago that freedom of expression is inherent in infinite number of modes and ways, not simply spoken words. Duh.

23.01.2020 20:59
0

Are you familiar with the saying, "your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face"? *

A primary function of Freedom Of Speech is to protect the people's right to criticize their government.

Now imagine, that a government (or one of its individual agents) broadcast loud booing OVER the soundtrack of any media it found critical.

This would be de facto censorship, not free speech.

23.01.2020 22:01
0

A primary function of Freedom Of Speech is to protect the people's right to criticize their government.

No, that's Freedom of the Press. Freedom of Speech is the right of people to express the unpopular and even hated expression.

Now imagine, that a government (or one of its individual agents) broadcast loud booing OVER the soundtrack of any media it found critical.
This would be de facto censorship, not free speech.

No it wouldn't, it would be someone broadcasting booing over someone else's broadcast, even if they tried to 'de facto' censored it, it would be no different than someone broadcasting Porn with God Is Watching text flyovers in attempt at "censoring" that porno since anyone can ignore the booing and get the original broadcast, same with the porno. Let's say for the idiotic thought exercise that there is no original as they have all the copies, then I'd ask why broadcast in the first place, because censorship does not include broadcasting the only version with loud booing over the top, EVER (including such an idiotic hypothetical).

23.01.2020 22:20
0

Freedom of Speech is the right of people [including members of the press] to express the unpopular and even hated expression.

24.01.2020 13:26
0

...since anyone can ignore the booing and get the original broadcast, same with the porno.

The point of this hypothetical is to place the government in the position of the SJW.

(IFF) it's ok for an SJW to air-horn Ben Shapiro in person (THEN) it's ok for a government to air-horn anti-government speakers.

Interesting side-note. There has been some research into speech-jamming technology which could be used to silence speakers at large rallies (like Martin Luther King jr. for example) and it has the added bonus of making the speaker look like an idiot.

24.01.2020 13:34
0

Logic Zombie, you're not kidding.

23.01.2020 22:21
0

IFF you think Booing is not Freedom of Expression than you Think that Booing is not Freedom of Expression. You Think That Someone Expressing themselves by Shouting is not protected speech, it should be stifled, censored and suppressed, and at least it should be ridiculed as Idiotic Moo Cow behavior.

IFF you think booing is Freedom of Expression than You're An Idiot Mop Cow Equivalent.

Ultimately.
Moooo.

(if you didn't get it, you make a value judgement about what is and isn't Freedom of Expression

23.01.2020 21:08
0

A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.

However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").

To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).

A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.

Do you also believe "disturbing the peace" (midnight road construction as performance art for example) is sacrosanct free speech?

23.01.2020 22:24
0

However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").

It only violates the others speech if they were to do something more than Boo, like stopping that person from speaking with force. You seem to think that it's a violation of that other person's freedom of speech should they try and disrupt or express their disagreement that strongly, because that person is entitled to only certain kind of disagreement and no disruption, should he be disrupted or distracted that constitutes a violation of speech, stop disturbing, you're violating...

You cannot silence someone by being louder than them exactly like you cannot stop someone from writing by writing everywhere and anywhere that they suck. In both instances they can continue unabridged by your commotion, unless they are terminally devoid of confidence abd lack any conviction that they live entirely by suggestion and only for the approval of others, then you can try to argue that they have been violated, these poor feeble minded retards.

When noise is generated to silence it ought to be pretty quiet. O yeah, it's idiocy 101 over here, people are censoring BY booing, in robot terms: "when noise is generated". It's called freedom of expression, the conundrum is that freedom of expression is perched on what is acceptable to you and others as you try and suggest:

A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.

Yeah, freedom of expression for general disagreement, not strong hatred.

"if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).

There's absolutely no either or. They both are protected, the booing doesn't violate the actual speech, exactly like the speech wouldn't violate anything it disrupts or it has hate for, if someone wants to boo no body has the right to stop them, and should someone try to boo louder to stop them great, even if they do stop, it has not violated them and it couldn't, unless they were retarded.

23.01.2020 23:15
0

...you cannot stop someone from writing by writing everywhere and anywhere that they suck.

Air-horning someone in person is the equivalent of black-marking over all of their written words.

Sure the words are still technically on the page, but nobody can read them.

24.01.2020 13:08
0

It's not the equivalent at all. You keep asserting so though despite that censorship is not Broadcasting what you want to censor with a loud noise over it, especially when you don't have the only copy and cannot stop anyone from writing or speaking by such ridiculous "tactics", the difference is between a speaking engagement being stopped vs being disrupted, exactly like steem, nobody can stop anyone from writing no matter how much they try to disrupt them, and disruption is only in terms of how much conviction one has as someone with a strong conviction will not relent in the face of such little adversity.

24.01.2020 21:25
0

What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?

24.01.2020 21:30
0

Censorship is not about intentions. Censorship is either happening or it isn't, it is the results that matters and not the intent, and it must be a result that arrives at solely because of that act and does so with repeated frequency, so being booed once or a million times, regardless of who's being booed, must every time result in being silenced, which it never does, EVER. One boo or a million boos won't make it censorship because it doesn't stop anyone from speaking, exactly like one downvote or a million cannot stop someone from writing and posting. You can keep believing that one boo magically becomes censorship when it is longer than normal, I'm sure you also believe that standing up for freedom to express oneself is advocating whatever or however that said one was expressing themselves,
and much like you seem to believe that intentions is what constitutes censorship, ergo, if I intend to silence someone with a boo or a downvote, I tried to censor, despite the resulting disregard of either that is obvious option numero one as a response to my "censorship" (intent).

25.01.2020 02:16
0

Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.

What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?

27.01.2020 19:33
0

Why do you want to know because I have a hard time relating what that has to do with censorship and freedom of expression.

27.01.2020 22:52
0

It's a simple question.

(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).

(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).

28.01.2020 13:30
0

It doesn't matter how simple the question is because if you cannot explain what it has to do with censorship then it's a non sequiturs as the conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the type of person I am. I also find it very perplexing that you don't give a reason for why or how that relates to the conversation, so why are you avoiding revealing what that question has to do with Freedom of Expression and Censorship, it couldn't be because you're an unreasonable person asking unreasonable questions. .

29.01.2020 00:26
0

...if you cannot explain what it has to do with censorship...

Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?

Do you believe racism is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?

Do you believe murder is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?

I'm perfectly happy to follow you down either path (the primacy of intention (OR) the primacy of consequence).

All conversation boils down to an exchange of personal opinions.

My intention is to explore the similarities and identify the differences between our opinions.

Would it be fair to say that you believe intention is NEVER relevant?

03.02.2020 13:09
0

Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?

What belief? Censorship is either ON/HAPPENING or it is OFF/NOT-HAPPENING. Though that might not be as interesting to you as the why behind it, censorship is the act irrespective of intent, and no matter how you try and avoid that absolutely no intent can make something censorship simply and/or purely because of intent.

You're avoiding what I said initially about intentions and Censorship either way through, and this left turn in the conversation you tried to make with censorship was in avoidance of what I said regarding your false equivalents that Booing is Censorship, something you've to yet refute:

SteemPeak
Reply to: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Go to original post
Go to parent post
baah 61
16 days ago
1 MIN READ
106 WORDS
It's not the equivalent at all. You keep asserting so though despite that censorship is not Broadcasting what you want to censor with a loud noise over it, especially when you don't have the only copy and cannot stop anyone from writing or speaking by such ridiculous "tactics", the difference is between a speaking engagement being stopped vs being disrupted, exactly like steem, nobody can stop anyone from writing no matter how much they try to disrupt them,

09.02.2020 23:29
0

...censorship is the act irrespective of intent...

Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

10.02.2020 13:53
0

Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

10.02.2020 13:53
0

We aren't discussing my philosophic ideations but the fact that intent is not what makes ANYTHING censorship. Censorship is the Effect, the Result, ergo Either there is Censorship or There Isn't.

10.02.2020 20:07
0

(IFF) censorship is the effect (THEN) a news outlet that prefers to publish national news and ignores local news (or vice-versa) is de facto censoring the news stories it doesn't publish.

Does this standard sound consistent with your "censorship is the effect" framework?

10.02.2020 21:45
0

You're confusing ignoring something with removing or otherwise altering something.

11.02.2020 00:14
0

The difference between ignoring and removing is contingent on MOTIVATION.

The "effect" is identical.

11.02.2020 12:39
0

Ignoring is Passive. Removing/ Censoring is Active. Ignoring is not Avoiding. In the former nothing was Created that was later Suppressed or altered, and in the later it is contingent on something that was violated. The effect is that one goes without any victim while the other cannot be without a victim.

12.02.2020 01:44
0

So, just for clarity's sake, If someone goes to a newspaper and begs them to write a story about how puppies are being slaughtered or some-such, and the newspaper doesn't write that story, instead they feature the grand-opening of a new ice-cream parlor on their front page, would you consider that "passive ignoring" or "active avoiding"?

12.02.2020 14:31
0

Which statement more accurately describes it:

A: The newspaper ignored the puppy story.

B: The newspaper avoided the puppy story.

12.02.2020 23:32
0

I'm asking you that exact same question.

I'm trying to figure out YOUR STANDARD FOR "CENSORSHIP AS CONSEQUENCE".

The newspaper could claim, "well, that person complaining about the puppy-slaughter didn't seem credible to me, and even though one of our rookie reporters is sketching up a puppy-slaughter story, we already have this new ice-cream parlor story all lined up for the front page, so I didn't think there's any good reason to scrap that and start from scratch (re-mockup the front page), besides people find puppy-slaughter depressing and I don't think our readership would really appreciate that kind of thing, even if it might be true, which it probably isn't, I mean, who would kill a puppy? Have you ever seen one? Oh, my gosh, they're absolutely adorable!!!"

Does that answer your question?

Would you consider that definitely censorship (OR) would you consider that definitely NOT censorship?

13.02.2020 13:50
0

Even if they avoid publishing it, they are free to chose what they publish, and not publishing something is not any case for Censorship. The person is free to publish the story themselves, they are free to go elsewhere to publish, and if others refuse them won't make it censorship, even if every single publisher in the universe refuses to do so.

15.02.2020 18:56
0

Ultimately motive alone doesn't make something Censorship or not.

12.02.2020 01:46
0

Now it's "not motive alone"? Exactly how much motive is relevant in your opinion, and what mysterious "other factors" do you consider critical in determining if something is "censored" or not?

12.02.2020 14:27
0

There's nothing mysterious at all about an act being censorship or not, REGARDLESS of motive. It's the Result that makes something Censorship or not.

12.02.2020 23:29
0

Perhaps you could illustrate your point more clearly with specific examples?

14.02.2020 15:15
0

Hello @baah,
I edited my comment again after having read all of your exchanges wit @logiczombie.

so... I am leaving without my former question.

03.02.2020 13:35
0

Yeah, freedom of expression for general disagreement, not strong hatred.

Well stated.

That's an excellent distinction between Civil-Protest and HARASSMENT/CENSORSHIP.

If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?

24.01.2020 13:13
0

What are you talking about? Booing is not censorship. The speaker at the event is not entitled to silence from the audience. A boo is not the equivalent of censorship since the speaker can speak regardless of boos from the audience. Freedom of expression is forever more for expressing Strong Hatred than for expressing "general" or strong disagreement.

Now you want to equate someone booing at someone else as censorship, which is fine, in idiot land. Good luck stopping said "censorship".

Freedom of Expression (booing) is Censorship. Stop the Censorship (freedom of expression).
Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.

25.01.2020 01:56
0

If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?

27.01.2020 19:35
0

What Are you talking about?

27.01.2020 22:53
0
28.01.2020 13:49
0

Analogy
Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion", from ana- "upon, according to" [also "against", "anew"] + logos "ratio" [also "word, speech, reckoning"]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, in which at least one of the premises, or the conclusion, is general rather than particular in nature. The term analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often (though not always) a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, as well as decision making, argumentation, perception, generalization, memory, creativity, invention, prediction, emotion, explanation, conceptualization and communication.

28.01.2020 13:49
0

There are no parallels to draw between booing a speaker at a speaking engagement and indiscriminately booing your neighbor all over town. Poor analogy.

29.01.2020 00:49
0

Are you trying to suggest that harassing someone is Censorship now? You are grasping at straws, trying to make it seem that people can do anything they want as long as they claim it's protected by the freedom of expression, and that I suggested or said anything to that effect. Your question is a Complex Question Fallacy, as it's a yes and no question with a loaded premise that damns me if I agree or if I disagree as I must accept the premise regardless if the premise is false because I never suggested that people harass or disturb others and do so because it's their freedom of expression, but here you are yet again still repeating the same vain nonsense that tries to suggest that.

People have a right to Boo and Booing is not censorship. It's not censorship to harass people, it's harassment. Censorship is the act of Suppressing or Stopping someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not Freedom of Expression, and that is exactly what Booing someone who is giving a speech is. Booing someone all over town is Harassment, Booing someone at a speaking engagement is neither Harassment or Censorship. Booing someone all over town is not Censorship, as even then the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.

27.01.2020 23:12
0

Are you trying to suggest that harassing someone is Censorship now?

I'm suggesting that harassment is functionally-indistinguishable from censorship.

If you disagree, please present your preferred definitions of "harassment" and "censorship".

28.01.2020 13:37
0

It's not functionally indistinguishable in numerous ways and circumstances. If you disagree exemplify how someone can STOP or SUPPRESS someone expressing themselves by harassing them.

I'll put this here:
You seem think that downvoting someone is harassment, yet nothing stops the individual being harassed from expressing themselves while being downvoted, so in effect You think they are being harassed but they clearly are free to express themselves regardless of downvoting. You also seem to think that someone booing someone else is no different from censorship even though someone booing does not stop someone from speaking WHILE the other individual is booing them, even if it's to the point of being considered harassing, they can still express themselves WHILE the other person is harassing them.

29.01.2020 00:44
0

You seem think that downvoting someone is harassment,

Specifically for differences of opinion.

yet nothing stops the individual being harassed from expressing themselves while being downvoted,

If your rep is -9 then it is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) to participate in any form of discussion with the broader steem community. I've even tried to direct-link to their comments and the link does not work.

It's de facto censorship.

AND, I'M EVEN AFRAID TO MENTION THEIR NAMES BECAUSE I FEAR BEING TARGETED/HARRASED/DOWNVOTED BY UNREASONABLE PEOPLE, SO THERE IS CLEARLY A "CHILLING-EFFECT" WHICH IS, I WOULD ARGUE, PART OF THE INTENT OF THE DOWNVOTERS.

You also seem to think that someone booing someone else is no different from censorship even though someone booing does not stop someone from speaking WHILE the other individual is booing them,

If nobody can hear you over the incessant air-horns, then you are de facto censored.

Do you think that people who disagree should (EITHER) express their disagreement with reasonable words (OR) simply avoid each other (use the "mute" function)?

Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue).

29.01.2020 13:36
0

I never suggested that people harass or disturb others and do so because it's their freedom of expression,

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

Do you personally think it's possible to harass someone with downvotes?

28.01.2020 13:40
0

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness. In the legal sense, these are behaviors that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening. They evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect of nullifying or impairing a person from benefiting their rights. When these behaviors become repetitive, they are defined as bullying.

No. Downvoting is expressing disagreement or disapproval, no one can use it to demean or otherwise attack the person.

29.01.2020 00:35
0

From your own quote,

They evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect of nullifying or impairing a person from benefiting their rights. When these behaviors become repetitive, they are defined as bullying.

Downvoting someone because you disagree with their opinion is discriminatory.

Reducing someone's rep below zero has the effect of nullifying or impairing a person from having their voice heard.

When these behaviors become repetitive, they are defined as bullying.

29.01.2020 13:16
0

Censorship is the act of Suppressing or Stopping someone from expressing themselves.

Downvoting someone into negative rep clearly SUPPRESSES them from expressing themselves (all of their posts are automatically hidden, which is another way of saying "suppressed").

28.01.2020 13:44
0

Booing someone all over town is not Censorship, as even then the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.

How? How can someone "still express themselves" over the sound of an air-horn blast?

28.01.2020 13:45
0

I said how: the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.

29.01.2020 00:29
0

—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

I agree. We must let those we hate express their views with their words (which is how you most effectively communicate your thoughts and intentions and beliefs).

If you don't like what someone says, use the "mute" button or walk away.

And or blog about how much you hate them and why (which will likely only draw more attention (notoriety) to the person you are hating). I mean, for example, Ben Shapiro wasn't widely known until he got CENSORED (shouted down) by the SJWs.

24.01.2020 13:19
0

That's not censorship. He wasn't stopped by 'sounds' from expressing themselves.

24.01.2020 21:17
0

Was he physically assaulted?

24.01.2020 21:28
0

booing doesn't violate the actual speech,

Extended booing (and air-horns) effectively CENSORS the person speaking (using actual words).

By saying you want to protect "both", you're essentially endorsing CENSORSHIP/HARASSMENT.

24.01.2020 13:23
0

It "effectively" doesn't censor, exactly like "hidden" posts don't censor.

24.01.2020 21:16
0

A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.

Yeah, unless they were uncivilized and tried to censor the other by booing, violating their speech, raping them.

23.01.2020 23:17
0

No you cannot post on Facebook and send bitcoin for support when Facebook can and does ban and censor, unlike here where anyone with an account can post whatever they want and it will always be here, and the same for comments, that's why Steem wins hands down. Furthermore, downvoting is simply another expression, and those rewards are to be voted on as such, just as every upvote for another removes rewards from all other items in that pay period. If you want a dysfunctional platform that let's people express themselves only by upvoting go to whaleshares.

23.01.2020 16:30
0

Way better than facebook.

23.01.2020 19:46
0

Are you saying that I should be expressing myself by Downvoting those that I disagree with? Like so many on here do when they remove the rewards from someone who created content? I should just, express myself, by removing their rewards?

23.01.2020 20:42
0

Dislike is exactly what downvoting was intended for. You're free to use it for whatever reason you want. You should have known this already, the verbiage regarding flagging when one tries to flag is simple enough that one can understand that much. You SHOULD flag because you don't agree with how much something is making(reward) after all, much less because you disagree with them, heck, the only argument that exists here is that people are free to upvote as they please, but they shouldn't downvote as they please, because "rewards" or whatever.

23.01.2020 20:55
0

"rewards" and "This post is hidden..." "This picture is hidden." This............

I understood the downvote to be to combat SPAM, Bots, etc.
You use it to hide posts and take time and effort payoff (rewards) money from those that you don't like.
...and that is exactly what I see all over the internet in regards to those that have left here and why. Soooo many to ignore?

Completely Illogical.

23.01.2020 22:15
0

What surprised me in this whole story is that a single downvote could outweigh several upvotes. I could understand if there were 6 downvotes vs 5 upvotes - the net score would be negative. But when one behemoth downvoter can use all his steam power to make half-a-dozen comments hidden and slash one's reputation three-fold overnight - that was a rather nasty surprise. Thanks again to all who helped me to get back on my feet.

23.01.2020 22:41
0

rewards" and "This post is hidden..." "This picture is hidden." This............

Yeah you whacko, those are rewards that are meant to be voted for or against, much like every singular upvote is in effect a downvote for everything else, so too is a downvote an upvote for everything else. I'll help you out though: it was hidden due to what OTHERS thought about it, and that matters hence the Caution that replaces the content, or we would be going extinct just like whaleshares, where your utopian Steem lies. Not only does downvoting matter so much that it's encouraged by the free downvotes, but curating things as hidden is a infinite chasm away from Facebook banhammer and any and all such censorship.

I understood the downvote to be to combat SPAM, Bots, etc.

The whack; you sir a categorical idiot ought to investigate exactly what it is you're "understanding", so far you don't understand neither Censorship nor Downvoting, which explains why you speak of Facebook as you attempt to ridicule Steem as for censorship and speak of gobbledygook as you talk about downvoting, as if you've never heard of downvoting before or that you never read the enumerated list of 'common' reasons for downvoting which shows up whenever you downvote.

You use it to hide posts and take time and effort payoff (rewards) money from those that you don't like.
...and that is exactly what I see all over the internet in regards to those that have left here and why. Soooo many to ignore?

Completely Illogical.

Yeah I hope all those flagging victims find that support group. Btw, congrats at being a dickwad, worthless piece of dirt. Nothing more feeble minded as you sir. I will say it even if you don't want to hear it: Conviction, you, this idiot author of this idiot post, and others here have indicated plenty that you bunch have only so much conviction behind what you believe and think that it all ultimately revolves around being accepted by everyone, or that those that "don't have anything nice to say, say nothing", that it takes only a few token gestures to scurry you away, that it all depends not on what you believe, not on what you think or know, but what others do or don't. Good luck on "understanding" that voting is not predicated on anything else but holding stake and likewise it has an innumerable number of reasons to be used as and in, exactly like Downvoting.

23.01.2020 22:47
0

You lost me in the first sentence.

You are for some reason not able to grasp the point.
Keep calling me names though it is fucking hilarious. These examples are priceless.
Continue your frenzy sir.

24.01.2020 00:17
0
29.01.2020 18:03
0

This downvoting is what killed Steemit.

22.01.2020 19:10
0

Bloom don't usually involve him/her self with a such a mediocre type meme, meaning the meme itself wasn't bad....I think it was the tags more than the meme that did the post in. I say because usually the stuff I see him/her downtown when it comes to post is blatantly outright racist type stuff.

22.01.2020 19:30
0

Just, um, playing "devil's advocate" for a moment, would you say it's "blatantly racist" to post pro-black or pro-asian or pro-middle eastern memes/tags?

22.01.2020 20:03
0

Why have you seen "blatantly outright racist" post that are pro-black, pro-Asian or pro-middle eastern that has a genocideblack, genocideAsian, or genocidemiddleeastern tags that didn't get flagged? Therein is what probably drew their attention to it.

23.01.2020 07:25
0

I've heard the American Prison Industry described as a black genocide (probably accurate).

I've also heard Immigrant Detention Centers described as Concentration Camps (also probably accurate).

And Christians often scare each other with a vision of a future where their beliefs are considered a mental illness (like in Russia).

But to your point, I haven't noticed any posts or tags specifically, but even if I did, do you think those should be downvoted prima facie?

23.01.2020 13:02
0

Who am I to judge what some find disturbing. I been flagged over less...lol. The only thing I know for sure is I didn't think it was offensive.

24.01.2020 05:46
0

Your opinion is your most valuable asset. Don't fall into the trap of thinking your ideas don't matter.

24.01.2020 13:57
0

Thanks to all who responded. Thanks for your help and for the moral support. Hopefully this works and I can keep posting without worrying about downvoting. Worst comes to worst, I'll just have to register a new ID (with the fresh score) and be careful until my reputation outweighs that of the bully.

22.01.2020 21:28
0

Mission Accomplished.

23.01.2020 12:53
0

Apparently declining rewards has little to no effect on protecting your rep.

@freezepeach, please consider reviewing this case.

28.01.2020 13:16
0

@steemflagrewards, please consider reviewing this case.

@freezepeach has run out of steem-power for this one.

29.01.2020 16:28
0

I know who they are and, unfortunately, they flag for ideological reasons. This account's SP is just the tip of the iceberg of many accounts.

I try to keep my personal politics out of SFR so even if we had the capability, it would cause division in the group.

I'm mostly Mexican myself but support what the "It's ok to be white" did to reveal the double standards in the media.

Furthermore, I also acknowledge the distinct possibility that the establishment likely targeted white people as they are the majority demographic and thus most likely to be able to resist their plans for power and control of the people.

They have the impressionable masses convinced that white people are their enemy but nothing can be further from the truth.

The real enemy is the one who has infiltrated our education system, media and politics that feeds them a three course meal of lies daily. White privilege is a myth. Wage gap. A myth. Nuclear family is not the ideal for a strong society... Myth.

Some of the things they attack are that which is derived from the biblical worldview, which if I remmeber you correctly, you do not assent but perhaps you can at least assent that many of it does, when followed in the right spirit, (not in browbeating religious hypocrisy) that they foster greater familial bonds and security.

That strengthens families which in turn strengthen communities and strong communities strengthen their nations. Our society has since deviated from the social norms of our ancestors without fully understanding the implication.

Couple with our culture of degeneracy, we are on our way to be like our civilizations of old but it will be different. I suspect our society has been subverted that a sort of techno-oligarchy may rise to power.

Again, overcoming the strength of the majority demographic is just but another step in the plan for the authoritarians to come to power and use the impressionable masses to subdue those yet willing to fight for their freedom.

When they start really pushing to confiscate guns, you know we are probabky close to SHTF. Look what the gov tried to push in Virginia. Thankfully there is still a lot of pushback.

I don't think bloom, or I should say thd one behind the accoumt, may accept that this is what they are doing. I doubt his money will be able to save even him.

Look at South Africa. They are taking land from white farmers by force. It is naive to think that scenario could play out here.

Wonder if he thinks forced reparations are outside the realm of possibility. @bloom, maybe try to engage the issue instead of opting out. I know you're left but just how confident are you in your views.

Enough to rationalize them with words or instantly dismiss what you may not understand as hate or racism.

I concur with sentiment of the OP more or less but am not an ethnonationalist; although, I am very quick to acknowledge how diresome the constant push for multiculturalism has been on the fabric ouf our society but is designed by very crafty and nefarious people to appeal to the self righteousness innate to man.

It is easy for career politicians selling lies of hope to third world immigrants for votes so they cam secure power and implement their ruinious policies across our nation. We already the affect in a couple steps.

What comes next? Who knows but what I do know is that if Trump is reelected. It's not over. That's just buying us a bit of time. Not sure if we are past the event horizon or not but once they bring in enough foreigners to secure their power indefinitely, shit will go downhill fast.

31.01.2020 06:13
0

I really appreciate your reply. This is a lot to unpack, but I'll focus on the key, fundamental, underlying points.

My primary AXIOMS are +proHUMAN and +proFAMILY (we seem to agree on this).

I am also, laser focused on free-speech, specifically regarding CIVIL-DEBATE.

Reasonable people are capable of and willing to provide REASONS for their words and actions.

(IFF) a person is UNREASONABLE (unwilling or incapable of providing REASONS for their words and actions (THEN) it is unfair for them to DDOS (air-horn, incessantly shout incoherently) those who are willing to participate in the marketplace-of-ideas.

31.01.2020 13:53
0

I think your post is stupid. I've upvoted it for visibility

23.01.2020 00:43
0

You seem like a fair-minded individual.

28.01.2020 14:01
0

Don't sweat the down votes, put out your content and your audience will find you.

As you can see, we are a tough crowd.
We like the persistent.

24.01.2020 01:47
0

"I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - SOURCE

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR TERRITORY

28.01.2020 13:17
0

@bloom, Y U mad bro?

28.01.2020 13:18
0
29.01.2020 16:21
0