The downvote button. It’s a hobby horse of mine. Slashdot got it right: if you’re going to tell someone to shut up, there should be a small price to pay.
PS: to the inevitable downvoters. Let’s be clear that you are not just saying “I disagree”. You are helping to hide my comment; you’re literally telling me to shut up. Would you do that in person, without so much as lifting a finger to justify yourself ? Of course you wouldn’t. In person you would have manners. This is the problem I have with the downvote button. It incites people to behave like uncivilized infants.
But downvoting doesn’t mean that. At all. Not even sure how you got that idea. It’s also not hiding your comments, it’s sorting them. And the reader get’s to select the sort order (some which entirely ignore votes).
You’re definitely projecting your own opinion of the matter here. You’re not debating anything by simply repeatedly denying their view and restating your opinion.
Now please, if you want to actually discuss it, respond to their points about how many sorting schemes do not factor in votes. Respond to anything except the parts you simply want to deny.
You’re clearly getting engagement despite being downvoted, so this very discussion is proving your opinion ignorant and rather dogmatic.
I’m getting downvotes because people don’t like being told they’re behaving obnoxiously. That’s all. I didn’t downvote you or anyone else. I respect all of your opinions.
No, you’re getting downvoted because you’re only responding to the parts of posts that you want to completely deny instead of engaging with other details.
Now, either continue to prove my point that you’re either bad faith or immature to the point of lacking self awareness, or respond to the other points made like how several ways to sort don’t even factor in votes like the default “active” or new comments, etc, or how some people actively seek out the controversial posts.
Yes yes, I take the point about the sorting-algo choices and karma absence and so on. I acknowledged it in another comment.
My fundamental point (which you are ignoring) concerns the motivations and incentives for downvoting. My contention is that downvoting thoughtful and well-expressed opinions is always (always) toxic and unhealthy. Others don’t see it that way. So be it.
Nah, I wasn’t ignoring your fundamental points. I was discussing a tangent related to why you were being downvoted specifically. I find keeping to one topic at a time greatly increases someone’s chance of actually reading and understanding it.
I agree in the general case that up/down votes are far too coarse and uninformative, but sometimes it’s pretty obvious why someone’s getting an upset of votes.
Well, for my troubles I went back thru the thread to try to understand what it is exactly that’s bothering you. Seems maybe it’s a misunderstanding about my response to remon (“You’re not debating anything by simply repeatedly denying their view and restating” - you). That particular comment was not intended to argue anything, it was my mockery of remon’s condescending shtick (“But downvoting doesn’t mean that. At all. Not even sure how you got that idea.” etc - perhaps read it aloud to hear the drippingly patronizing tone, as if to a child who couldn’t possibly have a different idea of what exactly downvoting means - a question which is, after all, is a bit of a philosophical conundrum). That triggered me into disrespectful sarcasm - which, if you look, you will find I almost never do, I’m generally very civil.
I did get their substantive points (about algorithms, tweakable knobs etc, I know all the arguments by heart) but fundamentally I still believe that a blanket downvote button is analogous to slapping someone down or confiscating their mic - which are things people don’t do in person, they’re simply too rude (or coarse, as you put it). In person we have manners. I wish we did virtually too.
Not trying to start anything, I’d just like to point out that there seems to be a disturbingly large group (and growing) that wouldn’t have any problem telling you to shut up to your face. It seems that rude, obnoxious, selfish behavior has become more and more prevalent, and appears to be getting normalized.
That’s interesting. But I don’t know how you can be sure of that. My own theory (not exactly original) is that text communication - without voices, without faces - encourages people to be worse versions of themselves. When there’s ambiguity, the temptation for many is to see bad faith. It takes effort and self-discipline to overcome that, and most (or many) people just don’t have that.
Since karma isn’t tracked, I don’t think it’s a real big deal having a negative score comment. But since there are people who care anyways I think the downvote does exist, it can suppress people posting certain points of view lest you anger the tankie triad
Some third party apps do track Lemmy downvotes though. And I’ve seen plenty of obnoxious posters bring up someones “downvote count” in conversation–just so they can try to win their argument.
On the contrary, in real life I remove myself from conversations where people have nothing worthwhile to say every day. Half my job is judging when that’s the case so I can prioritize the interactions where people are ready to be cogent and concise.
It’s a reply to your comment about downotes. The point of votes is to rank threads, and the point of ranking threads is to promote cogent comments and avoid irrelevance, misinformation, and malice. I do this in real life and I do it here.
And I’d say this is your convenient retrofitting of an optimistic rational theory onto what is in fact almost always much simpler and more brutish: “I had a negative response to this because it contradicts my beliefs and gave me cognitive dissonance”, regardless of its objective merits. You must know this. Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree.
The downvote button. It’s a hobby horse of mine. Slashdot got it right: if you’re going to tell someone to shut up, there should be a small price to pay.
PS: to the inevitable downvoters. Let’s be clear that you are not just saying “I disagree”. You are helping to hide my comment; you’re literally telling me to shut up. Would you do that in person, without so much as lifting a finger to justify yourself ? Of course you wouldn’t. In person you would have manners. This is the problem I have with the downvote button. It incites people to behave like uncivilized infants.
But downvoting doesn’t mean that. At all. Not even sure how you got that idea. It’s also not hiding your comments, it’s sorting them. And the reader get’s to select the sort order (some which entirely ignore votes).
So yeah, you’re not making any sense here.
It doesn’t?
Really? At all?
Hmm. You mean you don’t have perfect insight into other people’s minds? Admittedly that’s odd.
And you’re coming across as the kind of sanctimonious interlocutor that I can’t be bothered to answer properly.
You’re definitely projecting your own opinion of the matter here. You’re not debating anything by simply repeatedly denying their view and restating your opinion.
Now please, if you want to actually discuss it, respond to their points about how many sorting schemes do not factor in votes. Respond to anything except the parts you simply want to deny.
You’re clearly getting engagement despite being downvoted, so this very discussion is proving your opinion ignorant and rather dogmatic.
I’m getting downvotes because people don’t like being told they’re behaving obnoxiously. That’s all. I didn’t downvote you or anyone else. I respect all of your opinions.
No, you’re getting downvoted because you’re only responding to the parts of posts that you want to completely deny instead of engaging with other details.
Now, either continue to prove my point that you’re either bad faith or immature to the point of lacking self awareness, or respond to the other points made like how several ways to sort don’t even factor in votes like the default “active” or new comments, etc, or how some people actively seek out the controversial posts.
Yes yes, I take the point about the sorting-algo choices and karma absence and so on. I acknowledged it in another comment.
My fundamental point (which you are ignoring) concerns the motivations and incentives for downvoting. My contention is that downvoting thoughtful and well-expressed opinions is always (always) toxic and unhealthy. Others don’t see it that way. So be it.
Nah, I wasn’t ignoring your fundamental points. I was discussing a tangent related to why you were being downvoted specifically. I find keeping to one topic at a time greatly increases someone’s chance of actually reading and understanding it.
I agree in the general case that up/down votes are far too coarse and uninformative, but sometimes it’s pretty obvious why someone’s getting an upset of votes.
Well, for my troubles I went back thru the thread to try to understand what it is exactly that’s bothering you. Seems maybe it’s a misunderstanding about my response to remon (“You’re not debating anything by simply repeatedly denying their view and restating” - you). That particular comment was not intended to argue anything, it was my mockery of remon’s condescending shtick (“But downvoting doesn’t mean that. At all. Not even sure how you got that idea.” etc - perhaps read it aloud to hear the drippingly patronizing tone, as if to a child who couldn’t possibly have a different idea of what exactly downvoting means - a question which is, after all, is a bit of a philosophical conundrum). That triggered me into disrespectful sarcasm - which, if you look, you will find I almost never do, I’m generally very civil.
I did get their substantive points (about algorithms, tweakable knobs etc, I know all the arguments by heart) but fundamentally I still believe that a blanket downvote button is analogous to slapping someone down or confiscating their mic - which are things people don’t do in person, they’re simply too rude (or coarse, as you put it). In person we have manners. I wish we did virtually too.
Yeah. Sometimes I can’t resist. Sorry.
Not trying to start anything, I’d just like to point out that there seems to be a disturbingly large group (and growing) that wouldn’t have any problem telling you to shut up to your face. It seems that rude, obnoxious, selfish behavior has become more and more prevalent, and appears to be getting normalized.
That’s interesting. But I don’t know how you can be sure of that. My own theory (not exactly original) is that text communication - without voices, without faces - encourages people to be worse versions of themselves. When there’s ambiguity, the temptation for many is to see bad faith. It takes effort and self-discipline to overcome that, and most (or many) people just don’t have that.
It can be both. Some need to be told to shut up.
Since karma isn’t tracked, I don’t think it’s a real big deal having a negative score comment. But since there are people who care anyways I think the downvote does exist, it can suppress people posting certain points of view lest you anger the tankie triad
Some third party apps do track Lemmy downvotes though. And I’ve seen plenty of obnoxious posters bring up someones “downvote count” in conversation–just so they can try to win their argument.
Technically it is. All votes are tracked and karma is just all the votes you got, tallied up.
It’s just that, by default, lemmy doesn’t sum them up and display them. But the information is there and could be shown with 3rd party apps.
I agree this is an important counter-argument. My other points stand.
On the contrary, in real life I remove myself from conversations where people have nothing worthwhile to say every day. Half my job is judging when that’s the case so I can prioritize the interactions where people are ready to be cogent and concise.
This seems to be a reply to another comment.
It’s a reply to your comment about downotes. The point of votes is to rank threads, and the point of ranking threads is to promote cogent comments and avoid irrelevance, misinformation, and malice. I do this in real life and I do it here.
And I’d say this is your convenient retrofitting of an optimistic rational theory onto what is in fact almost always much simpler and more brutish: “I had a negative response to this because it contradicts my beliefs and gave me cognitive dissonance”, regardless of its objective merits. You must know this. Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree.