248
Post upvotes are like github stars
(lemmy.sdf.org)
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
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.
While it is easy to fall into this trap of disagree downvotes, they should really not be used that way. All that does is turn them into a popularity contest. Downvotes should be used on comments that do not improve the thread. This may be because they are wrong, made in bad faith, rude, or otherwise, but not simply because you disagree. Ideally we would have different buttons for this like the forums of old, but no one seems interested in that nowadays.
What buttons were them?
Instead of up/down buttons you would have a set of buttons such as "Agree", "Disagree", "Funny", "Useful", etcetera. The only website I know of that still uses these is Ravelry.
Ahh, that is a neat thought. Thanks for elaborating and sharing.
Typically, the things I disagree with are the things like bad faith arguments, lies, rudeness, or bigoted ideals that purport that not all humans deserve equal rights, etc.
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.