I mentioned you because you were one of my closest friends in the Alliance and I wanted you to see the blatant sexism going on by people that represent the Alliance. I did not apologize on your behalf, I apologized to you on behalf of SirCork and the rest of the Alliance that tolerates representatives using sexist language.
As per extension, I had zero issue with people deciding not to install it because of the shill factor. I had an issue that people kept saying it was a scam to steal private keys. I had an issue that people were degrading another great friend of mine.
If it was a simple, do not shill your extensions that you were hired for, then I would have said okay and left just as I had in several other servers while I was trying to promote it.
In the future - if you say I apologize for (and put someone's name) it generally means I am apologizing on behalf of that person. If you instead said I apologize to (and put someone's name) it means that you are sorry/apologetic to that person. Hence why I said you were apologizing for me as it was stated as such.
If there is an issue with an individuals behavior than to keep yourself from looking like a fool, it is ALWAYS necessary to stay away from blanket statements that actually will accuse and ENTIRE group (which includes me) of being sexist. Deal on an individual to individual basis. Like I said I spoke for myself and MY personal issue was just as I stated. I liked my extension. But there was a focus to try and change people's minds to the extension (whether or not good or bad) was still tainted by not being honest from the get go. The others, again that is an individual by individual basis.
There is absolutely NO ONE in ANY group that can speak for me and my opinion let alone what I stand for. I fully disagree with your stand here of trying to disgrace an entire group of people just because you have issues with a few. Deal with them personally, don't drag others unnecessarily through the mud (like me who you just said you were close with), to me that is an insult as I have never embodied anything like these accusations and now it has become personal, due to your own need to try and tarnish the reputation of a group.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I may agree with you, except to an extension of representation. SirCork is a leader in the Alliance and a Witness. His actions embody a representation of the two communities at large. If he uses sexist language, he accepts the responsibility of being the role model for the group's entirety. If he uses sexist language, then he is showing that the entire group is okay with using sexist language. If a group is okay with using sexist language, then the group embodies a degree of the sexism that he embodies himself.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Except you are incorrect. He is not a leader in the alliance. He is a witness yes, but not a leader.
I have no interest in continuing the back and forth. I had originally come on here to state the few issues which were incorrectly stated. It is obvious that the group and the people in it (as I am sure you have now thoroughly tried to offend several times) were not the best place/people for you. I will reiterate again, I recommend dealing with individuals themselves and not trying to tarnish the name of overall groups by making blanket statements. If you think that every person part of a particular group embody or agree with what you just said above when one member does something, then I am sure you have absolutely no interest in speaking with a single person from that group. That is fine. That can be your uneducated assumption and I am sure will be a loss of some people you may have valued at least a little bit. Although I wonder how that is possible if again you have just stated the above.
Anyways, I am done. Good luck with your endeavors.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Witnesses are leaders. Back to my point that witnesses decide the future of steemit through the power vested in them. When the Alliance endorses SirCork as a witness, they endorse him as the leader (in steemit, maybe not in the Alliance) that represents the Alliance. If their endorsement came from individual members from the Alliance, then it would be as you say, an issue with individuals within the Alliance. When the Alliance as a group endorses him, the group bears the responsibility of being represented by what he says... the good decisions he makes and the bad.
The fact that this is a distancing measure rather than a condemnation measure simply further proves this point. Notice how no one, including SirCork himself, has actually condemned him or his words. They are trying to say, "He doesn't represent us" while we endorse him and his decisions. The fact that all these comments are trying to pretend that SirCork's power over the blockchain doesn't get influenced by his actions and decisions and that their endorsement doesn't mean you provide latent support for his actions, shows that they are perfectly willing to have sexism remain on the blockchain.
I'm not trying to offend anyone. I am trying to discuss important socio-political matters and provide reasoning for change on the platform. I am trying to progress the platform towards a better future. If you think I am trying to offend people, then you are offended. If you are offended and criticize me for offending you, then you are being hypocritically political for defending something I find offensive while demonizing me for trying to express how offensive it is. You are then providing the warrants to the logical outline I drafted in OP. Rather than addressing the problematic elements discussed in OP, you are further proving the problems riddled in the platform and by extension the group... or, to fit inside your criterion, the individuals that have chosen to continue to endorse SirCork and defend him rather than condemn his actions.
If you haven't noticed, I provide the distinction of personal and politics by the creation of two accounts. This account is used for the political ventures I have on steemit whereas OP (created before JPol was made) is an account for personal ventures. If you also haven't noticed, I have not responded to SirCork because he decided to make personal attacks rather than political discussions and I have responded to those that have decided to be mature enough to give political discussions.
Now, if people get offended by politics then they can choose not to support JPol while if they enjoy my content, they can support JPeders while providing that keen distinction. Moreover, if people are offended by politics, then may want to consider staying away from political topics such as endorsements for witnesses.
This is one of the things I've mentioned about the Alliance. It claims to not be political, but holds political decisions. It claims not to be political, but it makes endorsements. It claims not to be political, but has entire channels dedicated toward political accounts. It is, as I say, the dirtiest politics out there: being politically active, borderline politically aggressive, while denying the politics in play.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit