RE: Blogging Around Day 69: The #Alliance is SEXIST!
See, JP, this is where you have issues. This person we're talking about does much for the SPL community and the SPL community tries to acknowledge and support that. It's a nice thing. They've been around, supporting SPL since the very beginning, so of course they have mod privileges. You had mod privileges too, for a minute.
Here's where your mistake is; in this case right now and it would appear that you have had the same problem within the #Alliance... You're trying way too hard to make the actions/opinions/verbiage from one person mean that the entire community equals those actions/opinions/verbiage and that's neither true nor appropriate.
You and this witness didn't get along. You butted heads on numerous occasions. Then, according to the first comment I responded to here on this thread, you chose to leave SPL. And now you're trying to ... I'm not sure, either smear the SPL community, or start some made-up fight between the SPL and MSP, and that's not fair, JP. It's not right.
It will go far in my view if you can respond to this comment with more fairness than you've shown thus far.
I would absolutely love to agree with you, but unfortunately, I cannot. To do so would establish an unfair double standard that I would prefer not to create for the steemit community. See, the creation of @JPolitical96 associates with the fact that I had my supporters questioned why they continued to support me and a demand for those supporters to withdraw their backing from me. I was faced with a dilemma: either be silenced over a political issue or create a second account to hold my politics on as a distinction between my personal support and my political support.
If such a standard is to be made, then I concur that the standard ought to be rightfully applied towards the Alliance and SPL. Whereas you are the official spokesperson for SPL, the said witness is the political spokesperson given the already well-established reasoning I have provided above and enforced upon myself; providing support for a witness means believing in the witness's vision for the platform which can adequately assessed through the person's actions, opinions, and verbiage.
This isn't even a recent phenomenon, however, because it could be seen within the SPL's founder himself. Every single time he would give a contested opinion, the support for his SPL posts would be withdrawn, thus the necessary but slow transition of providing content on @SPL rather than his personal account. When an individual holds certain actions, opinions, or verbiage, his supporters reflect at least a fractional degree of representation for choosing to support the individual.
I hope you gained a great deal of satisfaction with that absolute ridiculous pile of drivel right there.
TLDR:?
If people demand that my supporters pull backing from me over taking an anti bid bot stance, then the same outcry ought to apply to someone that uses the word "pussy" in a derogatory manner.
To say anything less would be hypocritical.
Not only are you now completely off topic regarding the subject between you and I, but also simply wrong. What I have read here is an outcry against YOU and your behavior. To suggest anything different is a simple and transparent attempt to distract from your personal deficiencies.
[Wrong Account]
Yes... an outcry derived from an anti bid bot debate which incorporated GrumpyCat
and so what the hell does it have to do with our conversation?
the answer is 'nothing'.
It would be a double standard to accept it when people demand and successfully convince supporters to yank support from me over
While I provide an outcry over sexist verbiage.
To say I cannot make a reasonable association between someone and whom supports them while others do the same is hypocrisy plain and simple.
whatever.