• XIIIesq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I also agree with most of that, but that doesn’t make it OK to downvote opinions to the contrary for no other reason than “I disagree”.

    If comments of different perspectives, made in good faith get downvoted to oblivion then participation is discouraged, debate gets replaced with circle jerking and Lemmy becomes a very boring and out of touch echo chamber just like Reddit.

    Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.

      So something like this comment: https://lemmy.ca/comment/9747509 Which equates not liking Elon Musk with hate groups against minorities?

      Usually when people complain about something like “the Lemmy Narrative” they’re usually not bringing nuanced discussion to their posts and are just upset that people aren’t agreeing with their “hot takes.”

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That comment received 17 downvotes but the only person willing to reply deleted their comment.

        The comment seems rather silly and I’d wager that the writer is making a satirical comment about the repetitive nature of Lemmy’s narrative rather than legitimately equating people that dislike Musk to the Ku Klux Klan. If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it’s possible you may have seen that.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          So the comment is silly and you argue about its interpretation. In other words it did not add anything productive to the conversation?

          When I see someone with vague complaints about downvotes and no specific elaboration when pressed, that’s a warning sign that they likely weren’t engaging in productive dialog in the first place and want to blame “the hive mind” for no one liking their “hot take”.

          If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it’s possible you may have seen that.

          Not the responsibility of everyone else to try to engage to see if a commenter has a relevant taking point and coax it out of them. It’s up to the commenter to make that clear in the first place.

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yes, some jokes are silly and that’s why they’re funny. Although jokes can be harmful, I don’t think that this one was.

            Are jokes productive for discussion or discourse? Not necessarily, but I’m not so precious that I’m going to downvote someone for making one.

            I mean what’s more likely here, a guy made a joke and a load of sensitive Lemmings downvoted them or a guy was literally comparing people that support Palestine with bigots?

            I endorse the use of /s so that we can avoid this type of debate, but whenever you mention it you get a load of complaints.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If you define a “shit take” as a comment that is factually wrong and or harmful, that’s fine and I’ve already said that. If your idea of a “shit take” is “I don’t like / disagree with your opinion” then I hope you’re fine with Lemmy becoming an out of touch echo chamber and I’ve also already said that. Why am I having to repeat myself?

        It doesn’t take much browsing here to see plenty of rational disagreements that have been downvoted for failing to conform with the groupthink.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.

      How you think that people should use downvotes and how they actually use downvotes are two separate things.

      If you don’t like it, the solution is simple. You don’t argue until you’re blue in the face to get people to change. You remove downvotes.

      Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.

        That doesn’t improve anything. I’ve been on sites with upvotes only and it doesn’t lead to more productive discussions.
        Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that. Meanwhile the person giving incorrect information feels bolstered by the 3 upvotes they have received that people agree with them, while ignoring the posts with 30 upvotes pointing out why they are incorrect.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that.

          …they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Okay, so would you rather have them post their disagreement that they cannot articulate in a more nuanced way, or just downvote and not clutter up the feed?

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’d rather them think on it and actually articulate a position, but that’s a high bar to ask for.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                that’s a high bar to ask for.

                Right. Removing their downvote button isn’t going to cause people to pause and reflect on their positions, so what benefit would it provide to an actual discussion?

                If I’m having an actual discussion with someone I disagree with, I’d rather receive a bunch of downvotes from the peanut gallery and keep the messages to people who want to actually discuss, then have the entire peanut gallery flooding the responses with poor quality responses to indicate their disagreement.

                Yes, it would be better if people gave more nuanced replies, but let’s accept reality and the fact that not everybody is going to do that. Let’s also accept that you aren’t special and deserving of a long form point by point rebuttal from every single person who disagrees with you.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          But you can downvote on Facebook. In fact, Facebook is worse because it has a range of emoticons you can use to show your disapproval and/or mockery. So, instead of merely making a number go down, you can actually post a laughing yellow face or a frowny yellow face.