When you start getting flak, you know your over the target

On my second volume, @khrom responded with ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, guilt framing, deflection emotional appeal and more and not once addresses the points I made.

Since he responded by pissing on my character and calling it perfume i just had to make a reply post.

Here's the original text of his reply:

yayogerardo: oh fuck. this is pathetic. Really. I'm not busting my ass to expand the blurt to hear the same crap about low high effort content, farms and other shit as on Hive. mmmmkkkk311 told you well here:

You can criticize them and make fun of them, but the world is what it is. The difference between developed and developing countries is huge. I have been clicking on their posts for half a year, I see how they live, what their world looks like and what problems they have. I remember how one user did a power down, sold Blurt and fixed a hole in the roof. It was a very small amount of BLURT. That repaired hole in the roof is the real value of Blurt to me. That's why I vote for their posts and shorts on blurt.media

And besides, they were the first on Blurt to silence the spam bot in their own community, they'll probably do the same with you

Blurt is a space that everyone can use however they want. The main goal I see in creating this place I have stated many times before: fair decentralized distribution of money for creative people. Creative does not mean those who only write "high effort content" as understood by Europeans or Americans. That is why Downvotes are one big fucking cesspool.

It's cool that you can write essays. In fact, your content is cool in terms of writing and readership, but have you considered that, for example, there are places where children have no choice and instead of learning to read and write from childhood, they work in the fields because their parents cannot afford school for them? I bet you received a full education. Maybe you even graduated from college. So for you, putting together, for example, a "very high effort article" as understood by Europeans is a game with your finger up your ass, while for someone who did not have so much, it is difficult.

does that mean that for his community what he does is not high effort? fuck no! for his comrades it may be extremely important and what you don't understand may be profound. in turn the way he acts may be in accordance with his culture and tradition.

That's why some moron markymark or other gtg with too much money doesn't have enough sense in his head to judge whether someone is getting a fair reward or not. Only the community involved around a given environment can judge that. Everyone thinks they know and understand something, but the fact is that no one knows anything.

You don't know either. What you wrote is humiliating and disgusting. man.

you're talking about creating something valuable? and what value does content like yours carry?

as far as I'm concerned, such articles do more harm than all the spam farmers and scammers from blurt put together. and I don't think that what fiiz does can be counted as such at all!

you want to criticize some farmers and scammers? I'll give you a topic. Here you have the world's meanest farmers and scammers:

rockeffelers, blackrock, bill gates, harrari, klaus shwab, EU union, WEF, WHO, ONZ, Pffizer, moderna, astra zeneca.

there's something to write about and fight, by 100 years or more.

break down any of their actions into their first factors. show them to the world and you will do something good. maybe you will even discover something that will shake the world and sweep away at least one of these
scumbags.

all the more so since I see that you want to do something good for blurt. Since you don't know anything about programming or promotion (or you just not showing it), nor are you a graphic designer, etc., and your strong point that you show here is an analytical mind and a strong pen, then you can best contribute to the growth of this platform by writing outstanding, brilliant and perceptive texts on really important topics that will attract people from outside and make them look for a way to create an account with us to take part in a discussion with you or start creating, for example, some kind of community around this topic. Internal wars are just shooting yourself in the foot.

---

---

I don't respond to emotional driven ad hominem attacks but I will break this comment down for what it is.

Let the Dissection Begin

If we start throwing ad hominem attacks, we already lost the argument.

Opening Emotional Jab

oh fuck. this is pathetic. Really. I'm not busting my ass to expand the blurt to hear the same crap about low high effort content, farms and other shit as on Hive.

What this is really saying: "If you’re saying something I don’t want to hear, I’ll emotionally paint you as the enemy." This isn't based on logic, but rather on emotional association.

What this tells me right off the bat is they he isn't here to add any substance or contribute to anything meaningful. He isn't here to address any points I made. Instead he's here to only attack me directly and not my content and to set a tone of ridicule against my character.

Practically telling everyone that "this person is not worth the energy for open discussion." It is an emotional outburst to set the tone for what is next, while also uses shock language to make others feel uncomfortable siding with me, without needing to explain why.

It is also an attempt to link me to Hive as a kind of guilt-by-association.

Hive = bad, therefore anything that feels similar must also be shut down.

The fallacy here is a strawman standpoint and ad hominem attacks to dismiss the framing of my content and myself rather than to address the points made.

Appeal to Pity & Virtue Signaling:

I remember how one user did a power down, sold Blurt and fixed a hole in the roof… That repaired hole in the roof is the real value of Blurt to me.

This is an emotional story to gain empathy rather than logic. It is to say that helping the poor is more meaningful than content quality. It's like saying a platform should be measured by isolated charity moments, not consistent integrity. It is trying to win an already losing argument through plucking at heartstrings and not one of reason.

It further implies that isolated examples of good outcomes justify systemic flaws.

To summarize it along with the intention of the whole commentary piece in 20 words or less.

"Shut up. Even if the system is abused, someone fixed a roof, so stop questioning anything."

Cultural Relativism Shield:

Creative does not mean those who only write 'high effort content' as understood by Europeans or Americans.

All criticism of content standards is cultural elitism now.

Guilt tripping and add in identity politics. Suggesting I'm imposing a colonial mindset, that I am using a eurocentric standard and using cultural differences as a defense against content critique. It is an attempt to shut down standards or expectations by suggesting they’re colonial or elitist and generalizes whole regions while accusing others of narrow thinking. It also assumes quality is a matter of cultural opinion rather than something that can be objectively discussed.

Psychologically he’s trying to create moral dissonance. “If you attack low effort content farming, you’re hurting poor people.”

This is to make me feel bad about having education or skill. As if using them is an attack on others who don’t use them. My mind boggles.

It's a clever diversion tactic to making me feel like the oppressor for asking for standards and also moral relativism implying no universal standards of quality exist at all.

"You don’t get to say anything about quality unless you’re from the same culture. Otherwise, you’re an oppressor.”

Yet paradoxically, he feels justified telling me what content I should write. Watch for the "who am I to judge" card.

Guilt Framing

For you, putting together a 'very high effort article' is a game with your finger up your ass…

Designed to make me feel that because I have more ability, my standards should be lower.

Not happening.

What this implies is that he trying penalize my strengths instead of seeing them as value-adding.

"If you’re skilled, your expectations make others look bad. So you should feel bad and lower them.”

A cultural ceiling to protect mediocrity and to discouraging excellence.

"Who am I to judge?"

They can judge you, but you can’t judge them

Only the community involved can judge that.

Go ahead try denying me the right to analyze shared public content. And on a satirical piece at that. Bless.

"If you’re not in the club, you can’t comment on the club. But we can comment on you.”

This undermines the idea of open decentralized platforms claim where everyone is supposed to have a voice. What happened to freedom speech? Is it only valid when the truth I question is not about your beliefs and benefits you. But once I do, I'm now an oppressive pathetic inconsiderate jackass.

Direct Character Attack. (Ad hominems... again)

What you wrote is humiliating and disgusting. man.

Man.

"You are a bad person for having this opinion. Not just wrong, morally wrong."

Ad hominem: attacking me, not my argument.

What he trying to do here is paint me in bad light. It's to trigger emotional defense mechanism in readers by making them afraid to agree with me out of fear they’ll be called the same thing. It works well with the herd mentality.

You can say this is a social weapon to silence dissent.

Disagreeing with farming = cruelty or moral failure.

Backhanded Praise For Redirection

You’re good at writing… so write about WEF, Klaus Schwab, etc

So now my role in blurt needs to be preassigned and free from any internal dissent. Don't question Burt's system. Do I smell something churning again? Hopefully there's still time to turn this into cheese.

What this implies is that he is trying to redirect my purpose to serve his vision of Blurt. He wants decentralization, but not the kind that questions internal power dynamics.

Then to use flattery and subtle guilt tripping to get me to be under control.

"You could be so good… if only you stopped questioning us."

Or

"You’re allowed to be great, as long as your greatness makes me comfortable.”

In essence: "Fight the safe enemies, not the ones I’m allied with."

The Final Jab

Since you don't know programming or promotion… use your pen to attract others. ...Internal wars are shooting yourself in the foot.

"You don’t contribute in the ways I care about, so stay in your lane and stop making waves."

What a contradictory commentary this has been.

Blurt is for everyone, yet tries to control how I use my voice. Tried and failed.

This is nothing short of tone-policing and utility framing.

In conclusion khroms reply is not just on disagreement but a tightly woven ideological and emotional defense system. It's designed to:

• Protect a moral worldview based on sympathy over structure.
• Punish dissenters who ask uncomfortable but necessary questions.
• Redirect intelligent users away from internal reform and into safe, non-threatening roles.

He’s defending a community-centered tribal identity, not a scalable or sustainable model. And in doing so, he contradicts the very openness and decentralization Blurt is supposed to represent.

---

---

If you can’t question the community without being attacked, then you’re not in a decentralized space. You’re in a controlled cult of sentiment. Then to say that others can’t improve is not compassion, it’s a subtle form of intellectual racism. And now the same people who claim to fight for voice and freedom are the ones trying to silence mine. How quickly the mask falls.

Empowering people doesn’t mean lowering standards, it means helping them rise to meet them. And that's what I aim to do with humor, satire and truth.

Just trying to help, but apparently that’s a microaggression now.

---

---

Affiliated links

Central Exchanges:

1. MEXC
2. Binance
3. StealthX
4. BingX
5. Probit

Crypto Casino:

EarnBet

Legal

Learn to Win In Court

Chat Rooms:

Blurt General Discussion and post admissions

Hive Discordant

INTP Army

Down vote trail for the Hive Cabal