RE: @freezepeach: The Flag Abuse Neutralizer
I've got nothing wrong with open discussion, as I said in the post, so long as the only option is a flag I won't be flagging anything that isn't abuse. My thoughts on discrimination are sort of along those same lines. I feel like discrimination should be illegal when it comes to things you are born with (race, sex, age, etc..) However if it is something you have a choice in? Go ahead and do things your way, if people don't like it they will go elsewhere. For example, smoking in bars? Go for it, if enough people don't like it they wont go there. Religion? Thats your choice, if I don't want to deal with you because of some disagreement than so be it.
Are you saying you don't believe that the holocaust happened or just don't agree with the exact numbers that are generally accepted?
I'm always curious as to where people draw the line when it comes to what things they believe. Does the guy who believes the holocaust never happened laugh at the flat earth people? Do the flat earth people laugh at the hollow earth people? Does the hollow earth guy immediately dismiss the ancient alien guy as a loon? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I just enjoy seeing where people will believe one thing but immediately dismiss others.
Where I disagree with you is I do not think discrimination should ever be illegal. If someone wants to not associate with people who have earlobe holes for whatever superstitious reason -- they should be allowed to eject earring-wearers from their establishment!
The community can then react to this inappropriate discrimination with their own discrimination, and not give that establishment business.
But I fear I'm repeating myself, and it seems you prefer a government-based solution. [Edit: discrimination within government should be illegal.]
Note also that "innate" characteristics still nicely fit into my paradigm.
They do indeed fit in your belief system, I just happen to disagree. I do agree with discriminating against ear lobe hole man (earholes as we call those pierced wierdos...) because it was a choice on his part :)
For me personally I choose to draw the line for discrimination at things you cant change. Anything that you are choosing to do I've got no problem including you/excluding you on that basis.
I think we're actually more closely aligned, then, with this thought: I agree that the community should shame those who discriminate against innate characteristics (like, my from-birth broken eye).
I disagree that "thugs with guns" should get involved (i.e., government). But I completely agree with a community adhering to its norms and rejecting outsiders who clash with those. Just, not rejecting by force -- rejecting by discussing their behavior and, if unwarranted, choosing to spend money at another establishment. Or starting a competing one, if none exist.
Agreed, which is why with the flag as it is I won't flag someone just because I disagree with them because their views still deserve to be seen. If the flag were instead a downvote that didn't hide the material but just effected the monetary reward? I would use it on things I disagree with because while I wholeheartedly agree they should remain visible, I don't agree that just because you write a post that it is entitled to a reward.
Perhaps the function should be split into two user-interface items?
Allow downvoting to remove funding; and have flagging which makes it invisible?
I'm fairly new here (a month or so), and know that I need to read the whitepaper for better understanding, but it seems that a simple split would resolve your quandary.
As far as the money aspect, that's what I need to know more for -- i.e., should the flagging cost the same as the downvoting? My initial guess is it should cost more, as blocking something is a stronger action. Cheers!
What if "the community", in aggregate, decides that they want thugs with guns?
If I can't harm people with guns, then I can't delegate to someone else the ability to harm people with guns. I realize my position is "ideal" and "the real world doesn't work that way" -- but this is my answer.
"The community" can want to kill 95% of the population ("Georgia Guidestones"), and I'd be against that as well. I would use force to defend myself, hopefully avoiding taking another soul. Realizing that "it's not all about me" -- it's about the journey and what I learn and how I react to situations, which determines my ultimate fate at the end.
"Holocaust" = less than 200 000 not 6 million, but everyone is laughing at flat earth believers and that myth was started by the same people who started the 6 million myth
I wonder who produced this TV series...
