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?

  • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
    01·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz
      1·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        11·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz
          1·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • BrokebackHampton@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          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 sign post 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.