RE: BTC in a sparrow's beak - where are we going from here? Why I don't put more money into my SP?
I think new users would care if, when trying to establish an audience, they were being flagged inappropriately.
Flags serve a purpose. It's absurd to use them willy-nilly just for disagreeing with another's content. Others will see how the target has become invisible as a consequence of voicing their thoughts, sharing whatever they share. This'll create an atmosphere of anger or fear; people will start to censor themselves for fear of damage to their reputation scores (or loss of earnings) or they will retaliate. Would you like to have to censor what you say for fear of potential damage to your wallet?
Imagine, for example, if Christians decided to flag Muslim posts. Or, Rap Music fans started flagging Jazz Music. It's absurd.
What you're describing is not meritocracy, it's totalitarianism. Flagging (or intimidating) the opposition into silence is censorship.
Appropriate content. I'm for absolutely no censorship whatsoever. I think, if you don't like it, go and look at something else.
I'm sure a serial killer would gain lots of ghoulish interest, tbh. Not my cup of tea, but there are sites online that love that kind of thing. I'm sure plenty of us have seen an execution video online.
You see the first reason to flag, "Disagreement on rewards"? That's meritocracy. You can flag anyone if you think he didn't merit the payout with his post.
I wouldn't like to confuse ethics with religion.
You can't flag anyone into silence even if you don't want to. You can only bring their payout to zero if you have a lot of STEEM power. Also, their content can become hidden but never truly censored, anyone can see it if they want to.
Well I wouldn't like to see serial kills of humans on the hot page. Same with the killing or exploitation of any other species.
Disagreement on rewards. I think we both know what that means. It's where people cheat the reward pool to gain disproportionate rewards. I've seen a selfie get a payout of $350+. Not even a good selfie. Also a picture of a jacket. It's that type of thing that is disputed. It's clearly cheating.
You're right about the one with the most steem power being able to hide those with less. If a multi-millionaire decided posts were unworthy of payout, just because they disagreed with the ethics, would you be okay with that if it were your ethics they disagreed with?
Even if our serial killer got to the hot page, so what? It's supply and demand innit. Hopefully they'll use the NSFW tag. You still don't have to click on the link. You can mute that person if their content offends you.
If it was for cheating, it would be called "Cheating the reward pool". The thing is, you can't cheat the pool. You can only vote with the SP you've got.
If you still think it is as you say it is, go ask @ned or the rest of the staff what did they mean by "Disagreement on rewards".
Ofcourse I wouldn't be okay with that, but there's little I can do about it, eh? I can only invest in SP and counter him.
The serial killer would get prosecuted soon, the carnists wouldn't because speciesism is a normal thing in our society. For me it's not.
Semantics. I think they were being diplomatic in their choice of words.
Yes, investing SP seems to be the only way anybody with 'other than mainstream' views will survive this place. Sad.
Our serial killer would likely be caught, yes.
Eating animal food is normal for a lot of people, yes. When you've finished flagging meat eaters, will you move on to those that like eggs or milk or cheese? Then who? What about vegans who use unethically-sourced ciggie papers? Who's next?
I don't even know what you mean by speciesism. Is that really a thing? All these new isms.
You don't know that, go ask them.
No I won't flag anyone except for people protesting the 1% that wants a compassionate world by eating a skinned rabbit on the street. Obvious attention seeking - he got what he wanted, right?
Go google it.
I know I don't know. That's why I said 'I think...'
Are you suggesting that the people protesting against eating animal products, in public, drawing attention to themselves, should be immune from protest? Who gets to decide?
What if he were just eating a box chicken nuggets instead of a rabbit? As far as I could see he was eating some lunch, in public, raising awareness, similar to what your guys were doing. If they are just 1%, what fraction of a % do you think he represents? He's surely an even smaller minority in this day and age.
He's a part of the 99%.
I don't think he is part of the 99% (unless you mean just because he consumes animal products). Not many meat eaters consume raw meat, nor do they take action against organisations that threaten their way of life.
I think he is standing up against veganism because the spread of veganism is threatening his (and many others') way of life. He's defending what he cares about in the same way vegan activists do.
Would you like it if organisations were trying to prevent you from eating the food that makes you feel healthy? I understand your compassion for animals and can sympathise with that. The way you're going about it is underhanded though.
He doesn't attack vegans or try to censor them. He shares relevant information. He states his case, discusses scientific studies and shares his opinion. You are trying to silence someone who is protecting a way of life.
Veganism is not a way of life or a diet. It's the highest ethical standard known to mankind adopted by only 1% of people. The rest doesn't care about ethics when it comes to other species (that's speciesism, discrimination based on biological differences).
He's on a raw meat diet, it has nothing to do with his ethical standards, therefore, he's not a minority.