Which - to me - is a good thing.
Do not know what downvotes are.
// image title: a lemmy post which shows a multiple of comments in regards to its upvotes/downvotes
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
239 points (94.1% liked)
Fediverse
27788 readers
593 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lol OK bye.
Nobody gives a shit and complaining about down votes is the quickest way to get them.
Guess what! Outside of a few custom instances that for some reason want to be reddit, the fediverse doesn't track your total karma.
Unless you're going back to keep track of your comments for some weird reason, the only time you see a down voted comment is when you get replies.
I could have hundreds of net down votes by now, but I don't know because luckily my instance doesn't track votes.
The point is, it's a little number next to an arrow. Who gives a shit.
Yeah I know that I'm courting downvotes here but that doesn't disprove my argument.
My argument is that downvoting opinions expressed in a thoughtful way is just uncivil. It degrades the atmosphere. It causes the less thick-skinned to shut up, to self-censor, to leave. The inevitable result will be less civil conversation, less participants, and - to caricature it a bit - just a bunch of guys shouting and snarking and sniping and generally "not giving a shit".
And let's be honest, you probably are a guy. I am too BTW.
Personally, I use downvotes to say "I disagree with this and/or it is a stupid/bad/bigoted/etc take, but I do not wish to spend the time and effort to respond and get dragged into a text-based mudfight with someone who is unlikely to speak to me politely, no matter how polite I try to be in my rebuttal."
I like having a way to say "no, bad, stop that" without having to spend time trying to explain things or engage with someone who I think is beyond convincing anyways.
So far, a great articulation of what (I guess) most downvoters are thinking.
But I'm not sure you're being honest with yourself here. Certainly not if you're talking about my comments, which are always polite if sometimes a bit forthright because I'm a direct kind of person.
Nicely put, again. But then: why should your antagonist "stop that"? They should shut up just because you disagree with them?
We come back to the crucial element: civility. If one believes in free speech, and the right of others to have their own opinions and to have a voice, I still see absolutely justification for downvoting a thoughtfully expressed opinion.
I don't agree with you here but I respect your right to have an opinion and I would never think of downvoting you for it. If that comes across as sanctimonious, so be it. I prefer to see it as just coherent with values. Which I'm sure you share, by the way.
Usually, when I disagree with something, it is because it is incorrect, lying, or particularly mean-spirited. I disagree with people that do not think that every human deserves the same rights. I disagree with people that push for ideologies that would strip other humans of their rights, or that would inflict needless suffering. I don't downvote people when I disagree with what media they think is good or something. I downvote those that express ideas that are antithetical to what I see as basic human decency or that are factually incorrect.
Factually incorrect, sure. But do you not see that your other criteria are very subjective? Rights, suffering, decency, these are all slippery non-binary concepts. Others may define them differently from you. Presumably you don't think that others are not allowed to have their own opinions, yet in effect you're telling them that. I think I already know which way you vote and, believe it or not, I vote that way too. But in my understanding of history, treating the views of others as invalid is generally a dangerous path to be on.
That's why it's a disagreement. I'm not necessarily saying their opinions are factually incorrect, just that they are devoid of empathy, morally reprehensible, and antithetical to the teachings of the religious figure that they are statistically likely to claim to be faithful to. A lack of empathy should not be rewarded.