11

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -3 points 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 4 points 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 -4 points 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.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
11 points (57.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35764 readers
1025 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS