Hi to you,
If you intend to take the fight, I would accept that you play by your opponent's rules and - since you do not have a similar voting-power - organise some fellow combatants who regularly use their VP in the same way as it was used on you. It seems obvious to me that someone who uses DV will not mind if his own postings are voted down in return. The one you accept as an enemy, their language wants to be spoken because it is the one they are willing to accept. Why not take him at his word? I would think that the obvious need not offend anyone. A fight is a fight or it is not a fight.
Not being able to fight when someone has thrown down the gauntlet to you can do one of two things: either ignore the matter until it settles itself (it inevitably will at some point) or pick up the gauntlet and fight it out according to the usual options on the Chain (which obviously can't be changed). Since you will be defeated in one-on-one combat, since you are in different weight classes, you have no choice but to find fellow combatants who will commit to the cause for exactly the duration it requires (duration uncertain). Such things can probably only be discussed in the back rooms, and the recruitment of fellow combatants must mean a voluntary "commitment" for all, otherwise there is no point in starting the fight in the first place.
You won't find out in the comments section who is really willing to do this. You could only agree on a binding strategy with those affected by DV, which you have to be sure will be adhered to. The question "do I go along with this?" must be answered honestly by those involved. In this way you will find out who is only paying lip service in your direction and who will ultimately be left to support you effectively for the duration of the issue. If, in the course of your strategic discussions, you find that you have, say, 10 people who decide to regularly damage the opponent with a VP similar to his, that may be enough. However, it may of course be that the opponent in turn mobilises comrades-in-arms who increase the overall force for his side.
Basically, everyone knows that this can happen and usually decides not to take up this fight themselves. Those who do, however, want to be prepared to fight a cause for which they are devoting themselves.
Excuse my honesty when I say the following:
The threat of leaving the blockchain falls flat in this respect. In the same way, psychological means that assign blame to all those who do not want to take part in such fights fall flat. It actually serves the mindset of the so-called opponent. You thereby serve your opponent exactly what he intends to do: that you leave the scene. Since I don't know how seriously you intend to commit your time and energy to this fight, I would just ask you: "how determined are you yourself to work out a war strategy, find recruits, find a giant for your army, etc.?"
Because naming or publicly denouncing someone who obviously has no respect for you may only attract those who like to see and share the public ridicule, but probably won't necessarily support you wholeheartedly in your battle.
I believe the enemies of truth and freedom fear a light being shined on their strategies, fear the truth. So speaking my truth and sharing my experience is one way of ‘fighting back’. Also, I will not stoop to the level of downvoting, I do not believe in ‘punishing’ those I disagree with; I only want to live and let live, and not be bullied. I am not ‘threatening’ to leave the blockchain, simply stating the fact of the matter that it may soon occur. I will likely not disappear entirely if I do so, only focus more time and effort elsewhere and power down my HV. In the same way Big Tech social media hopes to drive independent users off their platforms with censorship, bullying and such tactics, so do some powerful characters on here. Does that mean we should stay in such a toxic environment in which we are stifled? I think not; to support such platforms is to support the very tyranny they encourage and engage in. So in a way, yes, leaving is appeasing to their wishes, but also, enough people leaving any system will cause that system to collapse and implode upon itself, which is certainly not what they want. There are different ways to fight battles and win wars. I do not have a well-planned strategy to fight any particular one who has made themselves my enemy; my strategy as I know it against the powers of darkness as a whole is to speak truth and shine light on darkness in the best way I can, and attempt to survive the insanity this world is coming to. I also made this post to make others aware of tactics being used to target dissent; what comes of it or not was not my main concern, but simply shining a light on bullying many may not be aware occur on the blockchain.
Thank you for the comment, as always! To truth and freedom. I hope you have a wonderful day.
People see themselves as truth seekers, but they do not belong to the same truth camp. An environment always has elements of agreement and conflict or it appears neutral. If the environment is large enough to contain different views of life, these different views will express themselves. Some moderate, others offensive.
In the vast field of possibilities, there are forms of expression that make neither one truth nor the other the object. As I see it, precisely because of this, they can often express more truth than a direct focus.
I see it more as when the people cannot get hold of those who made their situation the way it is, the people turn on each other. The question is how much consciousness is actually left in this case, where one can no longer see friends in front of all the enemies.
What irritates me about both mentalities is the attitude "whoever is not for me is against me" or the statement "whoever does nothing is complicit". I actually see such statements as mutually confirming, especially from the strongly opposing camps, and my perception of what is happening is that it perpetuates the conflict by creating guilt and shame. Even though that may not be your intention, couldn't it be seen that way?
Exposing your opponent in public I think is an unclean means, where if it were used on you, it would probably be strongly opposed by you? Are you sure that you are not ambivalent about punishment, or from an external point of view, the public exposure of an opponent could not be perceived as such?
The search for the guilty can be very effective in preventing me from coming into contact with my other qualities.
All that said, I would actually like to differentiate between what you research and publish in terms of found materials. I have often left you a comment or an upvote on this. ... For me, I find that I am less and less interested in it and want to go further, because in my opinion the issue will only be settled when people finally "forget" about it, as they actually always do.
But according to my self-understanding, there is not THE point in time when this could be transferred from me to others. It is not up to me to control when one intends to settle a matter.
Greetings to you.
No offense, but your comprehension of strategy is...er...lacking.
If you intend to take the fight, I would accept that you play by your opponent's rules
Big mistake.
Ask the french in WW2 , when 'blitzkrieg' was enacted - they just didn't play by the agreed rules of war - rules the opponent laid out.
Pesky Germans!
....Ergo - the premise of finding allies to matching voting power is null.
The conflict can never work in the favor of the lower voting power. If the opponent is par tof cabal with 10 million HP (as they do), it can never work.
When 'the enemy' has tanks, and aircraft, and guided missiles - _asymmetric warfare is the answer....(See the Taliban in Afghanistan as an obvious example - there are multitudes... Vietnam, the french resistance..the list goes on...).
(whispers... 'operation Erika'...observe).
no offense taken.
Obviously. After all, I'm just the one who encourages contradiction of the adage that you have to take up the fight by pointing to something that obviously doesn't work, but lingers between the lines. I'm with you on the strength of arms. To take this to mean only to defeat with equal strength of arms, precisely what is taken to mean victory in this context, can also be taken to mean the opposite.
Not playing by the rules, if you can do that, go ahead. If asymmetric warfare works without collateral damage and the war is won, I would be in awe. After all, the Germans have lost the big war, even though they had victory in the small ones. If you can't find the guerrillas, you can of course bomb the whole area, then you will most likely catch them. But you risk to lose the support of the locals who may have given you a hiding place and a warm meal.
Not playing by the rules, if you can do that, go ahead
Have you read 'the rules for radicals', (saul alinsky)
I'd highly recommend it (free pdf online)
If asymmetric warfare works without collateral damage and the war is won, I would be in awe.
You never tie your own arm behind your back before getting into the boxing ring - that's stoopid..lol
note: I don't know of a single historical conflict - asymmetrical or otherwise, without collateral damage. It's the nature of war.
In terms of this current disagreement, I'd count the cutting off of my granddaughters education as collateral damage (part of my rewards were allocated towards that purpose)
(How I chose to get around the problem caused, is neither here not there).
If you can't find the guerrillas, you can of course bomb the whole area, then you will most likely catch them.
Incorrect - you'd be unlikely to catch them.
....But you risk to lose the support of the locals who may have given you a hiding place and a warm meal.
...too much aggression by the tyrants always results in the local populations finding resolve to counter them and aid the rebels .
It only takes a tiny % to make this relevant...(i.e less than 1% of a population)
No, I haven't, thanks, maybe I'll look into it.
Good, I was waiting for this answer.
It will be interesting to see what your grand daughter will have to say to it when she is an adult.
Provide me with a good story, please. One of which it is said to be true.
Then, we are one a good way, I suppose.
Why on earth would she even get to know about it?
(her job is an her education, mine is providing the resources for it - I can't imagine why I'd ever explain any of this to her).
Vietnam and the carpet bombings/agent orange deforestation.
Intended to inflict causalities and demoralize - but only added resolve to the viet-cong army and the villagers who helped to keep them supplied.
(The went underground, literally).
I was also thinking of my son (and other kids I know). I am not telling him anything about my struggles or losses, either. Nevertheless he will get glimpses here and there, through comments from family influencing people who visit or talk to each other, not expecting a child to listen or understand what's going on. Through phone calls or curses made etc. etc.
I talked to the adults after I was perceived as mature enough to ask them about their experiences. Decades after the nest protection for me was long over.