I don’t think downvotes do anything. I don’t think negative reputation scores represent much more than a user’s inability to engage prosocially in any environment, and those users should just be referred to admins. So, I think downvotes should be left in the rear view mirror.
Instead, I think we should replace upvotes with two actions: 1) A ‘favourite’ action, which could be a single, mod- (at the community level) or admin-defined icon, or maybe even user chosen emote reactions, and 2) a ‘helpful’ or ‘interesting’ action. This would allow uses to differentiate between things they find interesting or helpful, and things they just enjoy, and it would give an extra dimension to use in sorting posts and comments.
If we want to attach any kind of reputation score to a user (and I’m not convinced that we should), then we can consider having aggregate breakdowns of those different point pools. Which instances did those points come from? Which communities? If a user has 80,000 points but they all come from c/ElonForGodEmperor, that tells you something significant about how you might want to weight those points.
I’m already disheartened after a single day because I did in fact engage in a thoughtful discourse but was summarily reprimanded. I was hoping this environment would be different than the echo chamber that was Reddit.
As far as I can tell your comments were downvoted for either:
playing into the “both sides are the same” narrative that there isn’t much patience for anymore, especially after Roe being struck down and the decision on Student Loan forgiveness this morning.
coming across as concern trolling for right wing extremists. I’m not accusing you of actually doing that, but a couple of your downvoted comments conforn to retorical devices that white supremesist groups commonly use. Looking at your profile I think it was just genuine ignorance on your part, but that’s the reason.
In general, there are so many bad actors online that hide behind “just wanting to have a discussion” that people have lost patience with it. I’ve been seeing that sort of rhetoric my entire life used as a way to trojan horse advocacy for things like barring gay couples from having the same rights as straight couples, defending racism – not even just racist policies, but straight up “black people are all thugs” racism – taking away women’s rights to choose their own medical care, allowing trans people to exist at all. The list goes on and on. I’ve just totally lost patience with it, and I’m not alone.
When 9/10 people who “just want to have a discussion” use that discussion to spread misinformation, gaslight, gishgallop, and make false equivalences, eventually you become wary of anyone who opens up a dialog that way.
Blame Ben Shapiro, that was his bad faith weapon of choice and it caught on.
Your comment clearly demonstrates your own bias. You are engaging in what is known as collective punishment or collective blame, unjustly punishing or mistreating individuals who may not have been involved in any wrongdoing, simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions than you and your group. This approach completely disregards the principles of individual responsibility and fairness, ignoring their individual actions and intentions.
Until an individual user posts racist or hateful speech, they deserve either the discussion they are looking for or, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, ignore them and don’t say anything at all.
It is crucial for you to recognize and acknowledge your bias, as it undermines the credibility and objectivity of your argument. By allowing it to dictate your actions, you are not fostering a constructive environment for discussion. You aren’t considering their merit or engaging in meaningful dialogue.
It’s important to remember that a person can hold bigoted views even if they actively advocate for social justice. Prejudiced or intolerant views towards a particular group of people, regardless of whether they are based on race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are equally unacceptable.
Remember, it is important to approach discussions with an open mind, respecting the diversity of opinions and perspectives. Only by doing so can we create an environment conducive to productive conversations and the exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we might as well create echo chamber magazines for everything. As an example, instead of “Politics” we’ll need Left Politics, Right Politics, Center Politics, Top Left Politics, Top Right Politics, Bottom Left Politics, Bottom Right Politics… etc.
I generally used to believe in that precept, that you should approach every debate with an open mind, and engage with anyone willing to debate you. But as I’ve grown older, I’ve realized that, while nice in a vacuum, that code is naive. It presumes that the person across from you is engaging in good faith.
As we navigate this new phenomenon of social media, we as a society are beginning to grapple with a few problems:
It is easier to spread misinformation than it is to combat it.
The Rhetoric of ‘reasonable’ discussion can be easily co-opted by bad actors to spread misinformation.
When you engage with a bad actor, you amplify their voice.
So when you get people talking about vaccines not working, or black people being inherently more likely to commit crimes, or blah blah blah, engaging with that in good faith runs the risk of just amplifying that message. I’m not really sure what the answer to it is. Like, I don’t think the Nazi’s would have been stopped by more reasonable discussion, and we are at an inflection point in this country where we are having similar discussions over trans rights.
I don’t think “always keep an open mind and engage in good faith” holds up when one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.
Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top. If there is a discussion about trans rights and the top comment is “I’m just against kids getting life altering surgery”, then that gets a downvote, because kids aren’t allowed to get gender reassignment surgery, and the comment gives the false impression that they are, and that’s what’s being debated. It doesn’t really matter if the person is engaging in good faith or not. Bad information is bad information, and it should be pushed to the bottom or removed before it spreads erroneously.
Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top.
Feel free to point out the misinformation and falsehoods in my previous comment, which you downvoted. LMFAO. Talks in circles, blatantly lies, provides no evidence… Sounds like a spineless leftists.
I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.
Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote… Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that’s who is obviously correct…? Or are you more simple than even that and think, “this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!”
When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?
I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we’ve done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn’t hard to do…
During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.
Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.
The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.
Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.
The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the “War on Drugs” policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality…
Good old “Drug War Joe”.
one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.
For anyone keeping score at home this is exactly the sort of thing I’m taking about. Like, this comment hits pretty much all of the general devices I outlined.
I’m honestly kind of thankful to you for providing such a clear and illustrative example. Gratz.
Nobody is keeping score, buddy. This includes you, apparently. It’s sad to see people who are so conceited. But hey, you lie to yourself as much as you need to, whatever it takes to keep you feeling content. Have a great day, friend.
I don’t think downvotes do anything. I don’t think negative reputation scores represent much more than a user’s inability to engage prosocially in any environment, and those users should just be referred to admins. So, I think downvotes should be left in the rear view mirror.
Instead, I think we should replace upvotes with two actions: 1) A ‘favourite’ action, which could be a single, mod- (at the community level) or admin-defined icon, or maybe even user chosen emote reactions, and 2) a ‘helpful’ or ‘interesting’ action. This would allow uses to differentiate between things they find interesting or helpful, and things they just enjoy, and it would give an extra dimension to use in sorting posts and comments.
If we want to attach any kind of reputation score to a user (and I’m not convinced that we should), then we can consider having aggregate breakdowns of those different point pools. Which instances did those points come from? Which communities? If a user has 80,000 points but they all come from c/ElonForGodEmperor, that tells you something significant about how you might want to weight those points.
I’m already disheartened after a single day because I did in fact engage in a thoughtful discourse but was summarily reprimanded. I was hoping this environment would be different than the echo chamber that was Reddit.
As far as I can tell your comments were downvoted for either:
playing into the “both sides are the same” narrative that there isn’t much patience for anymore, especially after Roe being struck down and the decision on Student Loan forgiveness this morning.
coming across as concern trolling for right wing extremists. I’m not accusing you of actually doing that, but a couple of your downvoted comments conforn to retorical devices that white supremesist groups commonly use. Looking at your profile I think it was just genuine ignorance on your part, but that’s the reason.
In general, there are so many bad actors online that hide behind “just wanting to have a discussion” that people have lost patience with it. I’ve been seeing that sort of rhetoric my entire life used as a way to trojan horse advocacy for things like barring gay couples from having the same rights as straight couples, defending racism – not even just racist policies, but straight up “black people are all thugs” racism – taking away women’s rights to choose their own medical care, allowing trans people to exist at all. The list goes on and on. I’ve just totally lost patience with it, and I’m not alone.
When 9/10 people who “just want to have a discussion” use that discussion to spread misinformation, gaslight, gishgallop, and make false equivalences, eventually you become wary of anyone who opens up a dialog that way.
Blame Ben Shapiro, that was his bad faith weapon of choice and it caught on.
Your comment clearly demonstrates your own bias. You are engaging in what is known as collective punishment or collective blame, unjustly punishing or mistreating individuals who may not have been involved in any wrongdoing, simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions than you and your group. This approach completely disregards the principles of individual responsibility and fairness, ignoring their individual actions and intentions.
Until an individual user posts racist or hateful speech, they deserve either the discussion they are looking for or, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, ignore them and don’t say anything at all.
It is crucial for you to recognize and acknowledge your bias, as it undermines the credibility and objectivity of your argument. By allowing it to dictate your actions, you are not fostering a constructive environment for discussion. You aren’t considering their merit or engaging in meaningful dialogue.
It’s important to remember that a person can hold bigoted views even if they actively advocate for social justice. Prejudiced or intolerant views towards a particular group of people, regardless of whether they are based on race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are equally unacceptable.
Remember, it is important to approach discussions with an open mind, respecting the diversity of opinions and perspectives. Only by doing so can we create an environment conducive to productive conversations and the exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we might as well create echo chamber magazines for everything. As an example, instead of “Politics” we’ll need Left Politics, Right Politics, Center Politics, Top Left Politics, Top Right Politics, Bottom Left Politics, Bottom Right Politics… etc.
I generally used to believe in that precept, that you should approach every debate with an open mind, and engage with anyone willing to debate you. But as I’ve grown older, I’ve realized that, while nice in a vacuum, that code is naive. It presumes that the person across from you is engaging in good faith.
As we navigate this new phenomenon of social media, we as a society are beginning to grapple with a few problems:
It is easier to spread misinformation than it is to combat it.
The Rhetoric of ‘reasonable’ discussion can be easily co-opted by bad actors to spread misinformation.
When you engage with a bad actor, you amplify their voice.
So when you get people talking about vaccines not working, or black people being inherently more likely to commit crimes, or blah blah blah, engaging with that in good faith runs the risk of just amplifying that message. I’m not really sure what the answer to it is. Like, I don’t think the Nazi’s would have been stopped by more reasonable discussion, and we are at an inflection point in this country where we are having similar discussions over trans rights.
I don’t think “always keep an open mind and engage in good faith” holds up when one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.
Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top. If there is a discussion about trans rights and the top comment is “I’m just against kids getting life altering surgery”, then that gets a downvote, because kids aren’t allowed to get gender reassignment surgery, and the comment gives the false impression that they are, and that’s what’s being debated. It doesn’t really matter if the person is engaging in good faith or not. Bad information is bad information, and it should be pushed to the bottom or removed before it spreads erroneously.
Feel free to point out the misinformation and falsehoods in my previous comment, which you downvoted. LMFAO. Talks in circles, blatantly lies, provides no evidence… Sounds like a spineless leftists.
https://i.imgur.com/ogg4jOI.png
I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.
Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote… Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that’s who is obviously correct…? Or are you more simple than even that and think, “this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!”
When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?
I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we’ve done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn’t hard to do…
During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.
Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.
The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.
Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.
The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the “War on Drugs” policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality…
Good old “Drug War Joe”.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.
For anyone keeping score at home this is exactly the sort of thing I’m taking about. Like, this comment hits pretty much all of the general devices I outlined.
I’m honestly kind of thankful to you for providing such a clear and illustrative example. Gratz.
Nobody is keeping score, buddy. This includes you, apparently. It’s sad to see people who are so conceited. But hey, you lie to yourself as much as you need to, whatever it takes to keep you feeling content. Have a great day, friend.