I'm going to have to agree in part with the comment above me on this.
I didn't publish this nor had time to review it, so Dronon or GreenReaper published it. If I had reviewed it I would have bought forth objections to using this to promote products of the author.
Promotion - Flayrah isn't a good place for unfiltered promotion – if you want that, buy an ad. Feel free to post about things you feel are important, but try to make a proper news post out of it rather than just dumping the content of your blog post or newsletter here. -About Page
I was fine, if wary, with Mike writing reviews to promote the works of others and video games in order to spread his thoughts about furry content he enjoyed. For one he wasn't making money off of it, so I could use that as an excuse why it is fine that he was writing articles because he technically was making nothing off the exchange. He was giving content to Flayrah, but Flayrah wasn't giving anything to him. So Flayrah wasn't *supporting* a person who promotes racist ideology in other channels.
With this article, I can no longer say that.
A naïve part of me also felt that, perhaps if he focused more time on reviewing the content of others, and not so much on his group's promoting of faux-Darwinism that somehow believes that it has to do with survival metrics of *individuals* rather than *species*, then perhaps he'd grow out of that pseudo-intellectual drivel once he realized how making content for everyone instead of in spite of some can be a healthier way to live life. When it comes to *actual* Darwinism at a *species* level, I must note that a species that kills their brothers and sister over race, sexuality, and religion has more ticks against its survival as a whole than those that embrace and love diversity and don't kill one another over such trivial shit.
However, this article makes me think those prior review articles were *not* a means to move on from the socially destructive path he found himself on and to do good for the community in a way that was not toxic. Instead, I now see them as a build up to slipping into the content he actually wanted to do: promote himself. After all, it's all about survival and promotion of the individual, not of the group or furry content as a whole. That's what happens when you let faux-Darwinism take hold of your heart.
I'm disappointed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. When you give a faux-Darwinist an inch of power, they always take the mile. Because they always put themselves in front of others. Just because the lady goes out with you on a third date doesn't mean you get to walk from second base over the pitcher's mount to grope the home plate non-consensually. But, this kind of brazen disregard for ethics shouldn't be too surprising from a person who sleeps in the racist channels he does, I suppose.
I *did* expected better of my editor peers, though. And honestly, has me questioning my position here.
I'm going to have to agree in part with the comment above me on this.
I didn't publish this nor had time to review it, so Dronon or GreenReaper published it. If I had reviewed it I would have bought forth objections to using this to promote products of the author.
I was fine, if wary, with Mike writing reviews to promote the works of others and video games in order to spread his thoughts about furry content he enjoyed. For one he wasn't making money off of it, so I could use that as an excuse why it is fine that he was writing articles because he technically was making nothing off the exchange. He was giving content to Flayrah, but Flayrah wasn't giving anything to him. So Flayrah wasn't *supporting* a person who promotes racist ideology in other channels.
With this article, I can no longer say that.
A naïve part of me also felt that, perhaps if he focused more time on reviewing the content of others, and not so much on his group's promoting of faux-Darwinism that somehow believes that it has to do with survival metrics of *individuals* rather than *species*, then perhaps he'd grow out of that pseudo-intellectual drivel once he realized how making content for everyone instead of in spite of some can be a healthier way to live life. When it comes to *actual* Darwinism at a *species* level, I must note that a species that kills their brothers and sister over race, sexuality, and religion has more ticks against its survival as a whole than those that embrace and love diversity and don't kill one another over such trivial shit.
However, this article makes me think those prior review articles were *not* a means to move on from the socially destructive path he found himself on and to do good for the community in a way that was not toxic. Instead, I now see them as a build up to slipping into the content he actually wanted to do: promote himself. After all, it's all about survival and promotion of the individual, not of the group or furry content as a whole. That's what happens when you let faux-Darwinism take hold of your heart.
I'm disappointed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. When you give a faux-Darwinist an inch of power, they always take the mile. Because they always put themselves in front of others. Just because the lady goes out with you on a third date doesn't mean you get to walk from second base over the pitcher's mount to grope the home plate non-consensually. But, this kind of brazen disregard for ethics shouldn't be too surprising from a person who sleeps in the racist channels he does, I suppose.
I *did* expected better of my editor peers, though. And honestly, has me questioning my position here.