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.
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