You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: @freezepeach: The Flag Abuse Neutralizer
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.