It's getting late for me, so this isn't going to get as well attended as I would like, but I'll be happy to pick it back up tomorrow if needed.
The easiest way to sum up why I downvoted this is by saying the post told me to. What the fuck do I mean by that? In this post you talk about knowing yourself as a life goal, and how it leads to success. I agree wholeheartedly with both of those thoughts. By the fourth sentence (counting periods, the third is more of a statement than a sentence) you're making assumptions about other people's lives, and what they need to be happy. This country is full of all types of people, and I've met more than a few who really want little more than to just fit in. A LOT of people are workers without ambition, who just want to be 'Conforming Normies'. Obviously, people like you and I are not content to live that way (unless you're just making shit up in your posts, but if I can't assume that you mean what you say, then there's not much point to the discussion) but that doesn't mean that everyone who does is unhappy.
The whole post, like many (I'd say most, but I still have a lot of reading to do in your feed) takes a very adversarial tone with people who you assume do not, will not, or can not agree with you. By the time you get down to long term thinking, where you make several great points about its benefits, you're basically accusing everyone who groups into the left of trying to bring you down. Nowhere in this post do you acknowledge that group think on the right is exactly the same thing.
By the time you get to the social media part, you're making generalizations that the way to be safely successful on social media platforms is by spewing left wing group think, and the whole time you're doing it in words that would be safely successful on one of the platforms where most people go to spew the same brand of hate, only from the right. That whole part reads like you're just whining about not finding a large audience here for conservative '...groupthink verbal diarrhea, post after post...'
When all that was put together, by the end of it, this post seemed like a secret ops agent all armed to the teeth and ready for combat who accidentally shot himself in the leg. There's a lot of potential there, but is it going anywhere?
Do I downvote every post I see that I think falls short? No. I know that people get asshurt about it, and I don't want to spend that much time handing out reasons, like this one, why I've done so. You get especially singled out for a downvote because you talk a lot throughout your posts about quality of content, fair markets, and power players on Hive. I am not a power player, and that downvote only took .001 off the payout of this post, but that's the shitty voting power I have, and I used it. It got to you enough that you noticed and mentioned it (in a whole other post), and I thought that would be a fine example of how I know myself and the world around me, and was able to use that knowledge to exert a very small amount of market pressure in this fragile, artificially inflated, oligarchical system, and use it to help you see yourself and your biases a little better, and maybe quit worrying so much about how 'fair' this system is and just focus on some better content.
Now that I typed all that out, I realize the downvote already accomplished what I wanted it to anyway, so whether you still consider it unfair or not, I'll rescind, but not reverse it. You may have noticed I've upvoted almost every other post in this series you're getting into. There is a lot of good stuff in there, once I sort through all the anti-left bias to find it.
So the down vote was based on 'poor quality content'?
Ok, fair enough.
(pssst -I have no left/right bias - they are both the same evils just using different routes to get there - authoritarianism).
I've been gathering that you do understand that both sides are the same, but you lay all the vitriol (that I've seen so far) on the left. This is why some of your work comes across (to me) as just complaining that it's not better liked. It's hard to tell if you've been brainwashed by the right, or just being antagonistic specifically toward the left because most of the whales around here are left leaning, or just not aware that you seem to see all the enemies on one side.
None of your posts that I've seen so far show equal vitriol to all forms of extremism. If you don't understand why someone might jump to the conclusion you're a Trump supporter, then you're really not hearing the tone of your posts.
If you don't understand why someone might jump to the conclusion you're a Trump supporter, then you're really not hearing the tone of your posts.
My 'vitriol' towards the left (not the right) is because the cultural zeitgeist (which is changing), is the current position.
Ergo, this is the one being attacked.
I can't decide for you, how you choose to hear what I say.
I leave that to the readers discernment and intellect.
Your vitriol for the left in your posts precedes the recent change of power, and the election. If you think the left has been in control of everything since before then, well then you really don't see both sides as the same evil, do you?
The left have been in control since 1913 (with a few blips in that timeline).
Central banking is socialism/communism.
(it becomes 'the central means of production', and the redistribution of wealth through coercion, devaluing of currency, and arbitrary interest rates)
I've already stated the 'left' and 'right' paradigms - authoritarianism - are the same thing, so why ask the question , again?
Because when you use the word 'left' but mean 'authoritarian', people are going to keep wondering, 'is this guy on the right?' You consider the Fed to be left wing? It's a private bank FFS. It is run by people with no interest at all in socialism, communism, or any other -ism. My best guess is that they have a hoarding disorder.
You throw words like communism and socialism around like the very idea, or even the word itself, is evil. Do you have any idea about what these ideas are supposed to be?
Communism doesn't imply that a few people at the top take everything and just give what they want to the rest of us, everything is supposed to be divided equally among every person, regardless of their status. Does that sound like the mentality of a Fed chairman? It doesn't fail because it's an inherently flawed or evil idea, it fails because people are too flawed to share equally, even if there is more than enough for everyone.
Socialism wasn't meant to be a central control of everything, it's supposed to simply be production being owned by the workers. There's a lot of reasons why that could be a good idea, and a lot of reasons why it almost never works. At the end of the day, though, the idea itself is just an idea, it's the people attempting it that fail or succeed, make it work for good or evil.
The problem with religion, government, financial constructs, and all this bullshit that we lump into society isn't the basic idea of any of them. The problem that they all share is corruption. Whenever people in authority work to enrich themselves, those people will prosper while others suffer, no matter what your -ism is. This is why democratically chosen (or other 'rule by consent') authorities are so vital to a functional government... if you can't revoke the authority of people who abuse their power, they will quickly ensure that they can only be removed by force.
Personally, I would love to see a day without governments. I don't really think we need them as much as we once did, and if I'm wrong, well, I'm in a pretty good position to become a regional tribal warlord.