You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Flashing your nuts and emotional control
A few hurt snowflakes -without the emotional maturity to handle political satire- is not good enough reason to quell free expression of opinion, surely?
This is the same for those who get pushback and flags isn't it? What is happening is a reduction of value and while you might feel economic value removed, another will react to their emotional/opion blah blah values being diminished.
Push backs and flags (not down voting) is entirely legitimate, and allows for open discourse...you are not taking assets away from another's production/work.
Tangible real world value removed from someones labor - is not the same as a disagreement oover information exchanged..
'If you piss me with off with your message, that gives me the right to devalue your garden by poisoning the grass?.'
Hardly consistent with respecting anothers property rights?
(Content produced by some one on their own blog - is 'their 'property')
That's not a morale or ethical action as far as I can see (within societies norms) - or do you disagree?
If the diminishing the value of someone else's property _because of your hurt emotions, _ and that is legitimate - then you are essentially saying the exact opposite of your own post!
(Hence the confusion and thinking I was misinterpreting it...)
The argument on steem is the blog and what is in your wallet is yours, not the pending payout.
I am on phone...
Also, what you consider valuable assets might be tangible while another believes their reputation is an asset too, It is an intangible one though. Attacking beliefs can to some feel like a lowering of personal values abd can actually impact tangible assets and potentials also. Where is the line?
Memes might have an effect in some cases but to me it is like only using 1st gear in a car, not overly effective considering other possibilities.
Using 'the authority of the system' is not a moral or argument.
An asset is materially defined.
Value assigned to some concept as an equivalent to material goods is ridiculous.
(Conflating the two is down to the phone call, I will presume).
And so condones initiating an attack, even though not attacked..?
I'll put your answers down to phone call distractions, mate....
Not at all. Something like reputation comes with influencing factors of value, as does intelligence and social capital. These are assets yet are intangibles. Attacking ones reputation for example can reduce potential for future earnings which is why defamation is a thing legally. Destroying ones position within their community can cost other benefits.
R...C...'s fading,....must ...get...power...up.....
So my last comment for tonight - I wanna get back up to 90%..(this is a pain in the arse!)
I do actually agree with you, to a degree, of sorts. Kinda. lol (but another conversation entirely, and not connected to the post and conversation - but would to develop that one when I more RC's.
By that rationale, how would you frame me making memes on my own blog, and then being 'attacked' - if my blog is 'morale' property?
(An intangible asset?)
Framed within a moral structure and not using the system/ defense of the authority...then this constitutes an act on my 'reputation' .
I was attacked, not the attacker.
Good conversation - I will power up and continue it tomorrow...I see some holes marginally larger than the channel tunnel , I wish to explore...lolol
(and I'm tired).