Oh yeah, the competition - what subject is it

Is the contest guessing what your next video is going to be about? If so, I think it is safe to suspect it will be about postmodernism with something about Alinsky possibly using that Hitler clip you use, tying somehow into your continued goading of Bloom.

A few observations (not asked for I know, but given because I appreciate the contest you have to help others).

Regardless of what some think of Bloom, they are actually pretty smart not engaging repeatedly on their views, which seem pretty consistent since they came here. They spoke once on the subject of why they give downvotes.

@bloom/how-i-became-a-professional-steemit-flagger

While I don't agree with some of the positions taken by Bloom in that post, and imagine they would feel the same in regards to myself, I respect the persons dedication to slowing down the promotion of what they feel is anti science.

From an impartial observers viewpoint, the few people I have come across that seem to be the recipients of their downvote seem to usually share a common theme, which is debating in a manner that is insulting to those of the opposite spectrum. I suspect that might help decide among the many they could downvote who is the more likely choice. You have always exhibited this in your presentations (here in the latest videos insinuating there is a small penis involved).

While I understand there are many times people will simply be unable to reach a consensus on matters, especially science where there are dueling experts who when digging are funded to find (or not find) proof to fit a narrative, it doesn't mean that one has to be offensive in presentation. Sometimes it can be funny, but shouldn't be the standard.

For observers on the fence who may be undecided on an issue, the side that begins uttering insults is usually the side that seems irrational. using ad hominem attacks will usually turn off most thinkers. They can be useful in the short term, but folks will pay attention when someone presents information rationally in a calm manner. In this matter you are currently under, Bloom has stated calmly years ago why he downvotes, and doesn't add to that, which avoids any chance of contradiction or misunderstanding from any seeming contradiction. This would fare well against the counterpoint of "small dick" as you propose.

I see so much potential in you, and realize that we all have our own proclivities that make us who we are. But I long for the day that you grow tired of the jousting in this manner. I know you enjoy it, but it will change nothing.

Years ago I belonged to a large writing group that was very liberal. I mean extremely liberal, the fringe of the left. There was a thread that was talking major shit about the Orange man and everyone who supported him. I can tell you that as someone who feels attacked for simply existing and embracing beliefs that many of them find horrifying, that after spending many hours in a polite back and forth with them the tone changed on their end from attacking and hateful to one of respect. They didn't change their mind on the one they dubbed the orange man, but their tolerance not only for myself but some of their relatives they were talking shit about grew to one of some understanding and respect.

Sometimes there will be those who will simply just disagree no matter what. There will be no meeting of the minds ever. And in a situation like here where voting decides future rewards it can and will be used as is being done here. In those cases where it won't stop, I would think it could bolster ones presentation that others sought to silence it, or strip it of rewards claims, for some sitting on the fence undecided by the dueling information masters.

Sorry for the ramble, but I really do feel you can do better than the small dick attack and such. You denigrate your truth with such measures.