I really enjoyed your post, @stellabelle. Two questions about this comment though:
1) How do you define violence?
2) Who are the "violent and abusive" whales you're describing?
You mention @kyriacos, but I've had conversations with them which were verbally abusive, full of cussing, personal attacks, and the like. From a non-violent communication standpoint, it was full of jackal language, not giraffe language.
I'm having trouble reconciling what you're describing. I see no physical violence of any kind on steemit, from whales or otherwise. It's kind of impossible unless we're talking about doxing which leads to violence IRL. I do see some abusive language and emotionally-charged personal attacks, but mostly from non-whales, many of whom thankfully are ignored and have either gone away or changed accounts to be ignored again. Maybe flagging is the violence you're describing? I'm not sure. I want to better understand what you mean. Thanks.
1). Abusing power. For example, let's say a whale is doing things that he wants to hide. Well, there's no real hiding on here because anyone can see what anyone else is doing. Let's say it's not exactly against the rules, but it's something that most people would find disgusting. Now let's say that a writer begins digging through this whale's activity and bringing forth that data. This writer is not accusing the whale of anything, but merely pointing out the data, the actions and the behavior. Well, if the whale was smart, he would do nothing. But when a whale is not so smart and full of vitriol, hate and anger, he's going to try using force of flagging to silence him, and anyone else who challenges anything associated with his power. He will try to destroy reputations, and will also take away rewards. All of this actually draws attention to the data that he wishes to bury. In fighting and trying to crush people, he shows his guilt, especially when the ones who report such data do it in a neutral way. Especially when free speech is something that some of these whales don't believe in. This type of behavior is fascist.
@kyriacos is controversial because he doesn't kiss whale's asses. He delivers things in a brutal way, but if you carefully look at the content of what he says, it's generally based in facts. I don't agree with his delivery to people, as he seems to be lacking in empathy, but he calls out scam artists, and shitposts, whale shills and other fake people. I have a serious aversion to fakery, shitposts and the like, so his voice is clearly needed in a platform that is quickly shaping up to be a ship-full of sheep. People are selling out fast. I see a big flushout coming, as some of these stupid whales i've mentioned have been kicked off the witness list, because of their greed and war-mongering tactics.
Trying to silence others who are critical thinkers is a form of violence. It has happened.
Oh I can discuss some of this privately.
I'm not as familiar with that definition as I try to use the dictionary definition:
While also thinking about non-violent communication's definition of violent language.
I most often think of violence as an action against a physical body, not virtual one online or one that deals with someone's emotions or points of view or ability to share their opinion. I define abusing power as abusing power, not as violence. Violence may be a mechanism someone uses in order to abuse and maintain their power, but I don't see them as the same thing.
You use language like "fighting and trying to crush people" but these are just metaphors. There's no physical crushing or fighting going on and looking at it this way, IMO, escalates the fears, negative emotions, and drama unnecessarily. You're a good writer, so I'm surprised you use language so freely like this, unless your intention is get these emotions stirred up in others beyond what may be justified by the actual actions taking place.
I'm all for bad actors being exposed, in a respectful, constructive manner. I've also seen a few ridiculous witch hunts which attack individuals personally and make all kinds of claims about someone else's intentions and motives which, to me, is essentially an impossible thing to prove. You say things like "full of vitriol, hate and anger," but can you recognize those are judgements you're making about someone else and you have no actual evidence (other than their words and actions) to know what emotions and thoughts they are actually thinking? From a non-violent communication perspective, that's jackal language. NVC defines that as "violent language" though, again, I don't use violence so loosely. They describe violence as a tragic expression of an unmet need.
Either way, thanks for responding and helping me better understand your view of violence. From that perspective, it's a really violent, scary world.
Your comments are fascinating. Where can I find more information about NVC?