I sometimes post news articles that examine possible problems in society. Some may agree with the author, some may disagree. I often see these posts being downvoted if many disagree with the author.
Why do you downvote the post instead of commenting to express your disagreement?
As far as I understand, the idea is to upvote the post to spur conversation and comment to express your agreement or disagreement. Or did I misunderstand something?
I downvote fash talking points. Because obviously I do.
That’s not a sly jab at you, I can’t see anything objectionable in your post history. But I would guess a lot of people have different ideas about what talking points are bogus, or what counts as news, or maybe they’re just trying to bury a repost that has already taken off elsewhere. You don’t really have any way of knowing why they’re downvoting.
I express disagreement with downvote.
Downvote disinformation. If someone’s going on about Trans bathrooms or Hunter Biden I know they’re not interested in truth.
Is the downvote not for disagreeing? I don’t have time to comment on every post I see.
To me, a downvote on a posted article suggests it doesn’t belong where it was posted, or the article is itself bogus, something along those lines. But (again, in my opinion) comments are fair game for downvotes if you disagree, and I will also do so if I disagree vehemently. But if you don’t want to actually add something to the discussion, no vote is really needed. Maybe you ultimately disagree with a post or comment, but it gave you something to think about? If so, the comment contributed positively to the discussion.
I see the whole system as kind of flawed, like. If I think some topic or post is total bullshit and frankly, wrong, I’m supposed to comment to disagree with it, driving it further up in activity. So let’s imagine a platform where everyone uses the system “how they’re supposed to” and there’s a post about blatant bullshit, supporting nazi ideology or some shit like that (exaggerated, but for a point) and it’s dressed in the clothes of a well-mannered, discussion provoking post, and it gets a billion comments all disagreeing and it gets to the most active posts just because of this. When if it was downvoted, it’d just be more ignored the more people disagree with it.
I get the intention behind the reasoning for it, but it just doesn’t work like that, because the whole system is flawed. The most active posts would be filled with thinly veiled and not so thinly veiled, even clever, ragebait and bullshit.
As much as I hate to see “tHe hIvEmInD” and brigaders flood posts and comments with actual, relevant conversation and takes, with this system we’re just gonna have to deal with it I guess.
If a Nazi expresses their opinion in a civil manner and lots of other people express why they disagree with it, then… what exactly is the problem with the post getting attention?
Why give a nazi the stage? Why raise their opinions there? The points are and have been expressed in a civil manner for at least a century.
“If a holocaust denialist expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view more attention”
“If a pedophile expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view more attention”
“If a rapist expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view more attention”
“If a misogynist/misandrist expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view attention”
If this is seriously an issue you have a dilemma with I have nothing further to say to you.
These kinds of points of view get enough attention as it is. No one needs to give them any more.
Because if you use force to suppress people’s opinions instead of rationally arguing with them, it gives the impression that they may have a good point.
Not giving someone a platform on a stage is hardly using force to suppress people’s opinions. Go parade nazism elsewhere, you have your platforms. I promise, when there’s something worthwhile to read and respond to, people will.
Nope. Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.
You’ll have to excuse the lack of elaboration but I’m kinda done of repeating myself when it comes to this topic.
You should ditch all qualms about losing the moral high ground over nazis. They don’t give a fuck, and neither should you.
Come on, don’t make me
tap the signpost the Sartre quote, you know, the one that goes:Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
Better question is why are you carrying over the obsession with karma over to lemmy? Are you the type to say before a post “I’ll probably be downvoted for this but…”
Just stop caring about it completely.
Also, shouldn’t they be addressing the fediverse instead of just Lemmy? I’m still not 100% on how all this works
I’d ask why you care about fake internet points so much. If you want to share a link for a discussion, fine then do so, but if you are worried about meaningless up/down votes why?
i care about fake internet points because i want to share things people like. if they don’t like it, i’ll enjoy it myself, but i won’t bother sharing it
