What gets you downvoted?locked
What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don't think it's bad behavior in the first place, or don't care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here...
One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it's small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do "Top Day" on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don't like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.
You are viewing a single comment
Either nuance in a topic people are very black and white about or not being able to figure out how people can read things as the opposite of what I wrote.
Only happened a couple of times, no regrets.
Asking people to see nuance here and the rest of the web is the worst. You're either left or right. Urban or not. Up or down. There is no in between, partial solutions are useless. Drives me bonkers
If you call both sides right/wrong when both sides are right/wrong, both sides downvote you.
Mention a third option, middle ground, or reasonable compromise is a downvoting.
Tell them to chill, you might have well stuck a hornets nest up you ass. There's a reason you occasionally see people just admitting they were wrong or changing their mind get sent to the front page, its just rare.
I reckon it's the issue of pseudo-anonymity combined with the lack of tone in a text post. If you're talking IRL it's much clearer that you're making a joke or whatever, but all that gets lost in text. Also you generally know who you're talking to IRL, whereas online you don't know if that comment was written by a professor of ethics or a teenager who watched a single video on the topic and is parroting opinions they are now convinced are correct.
That's why I really like the /s marker, unfortunately it gets a lot of hate.
What a constrictive outlook on human dynamic and expression.
What's interesting is that the language allows multiple meanings. The commenter above can either be driven bonkers by presence of nuance or the lack of it and both interpretations are correct.
The first sentence can be seen as being against nuance or it can be seen as being against the online experience of asking for nuance.
The next sentences can be seen as arguments against nuance or examples of behaviour encountered when asking for it.
And the final bonkers can either be against the use of nuance or the repeated responses to it use.
So without further clarification, we can't really be sure which stance the commenter implies.
With only these two situations presented, it's a 50/50, left or right choice, so I'll go ahead and presume it's the latter, since that seems to be more likely encountered in online chats.
If the commenter meant that a black/white mindset drives them nuts, then I redirect my comment, in the sense that:
Yep, I still make the misstake from time to yime and try and give a resonable take on a rant post when I feel like they are too unfair.
Latst time was a few days ago when I responed to a person in a Linux community ranting about how Windows 11 sucks because he didn't know how to use it properly and that it had the audacity to not include drivers for 20 year old equipment.
I got massively downvoted and after I explained that I was an IT tech that didn't run Linux on my main machine, I was weirdly called out and some idiot claimed that you can't be an IT tech if you are not running Linux as your main computer OS.
It was kinda funny, I was bashed contiously by the open community for a minor disagreement, while I believe that I stayed polite throughout the conversation
Linux users drive me crazy. They clearly see that Windows users try to use Linux like it's Windows and encounter problems. Why can't they see that trying to use Windows like it's Linux will have the same issues?
You can be an IT technician with Windows on your main machine. Whether you should be is a different question.
If my needs were better served by Linux on my main machine, then yeah, I'd go Linux, but since Windows better suit my needs at the moment I don't.
I did run Linux as my main OS for about two years, but then my needs changed and I went back to Windows.
Heh, I get down votes from both sides a fair bit. In one part I am supportive of views, but raise obvious issues in other areas. This makes the For team upset. The Against team hates me too because my stance is on the For team's side. The result is an inbox full of fine examples of how in-fighting destroys the grass while the other side of the fence has no idea they're apathetically winning.
Almost all of this comes down to people attempting to express their self-assessed virtuosity as superior to others, or they are driven by a manipulative fallacy—argumentun ad populum is a big one in echo chambers—causing them to easily sway closer to extremes with little critical thought first.
This is why we are supposed to discuss and not argue, remaining constantly open to exploring and contemplating new information. It is not about who is right or wrong, rather the discourse and learning from it. But that's not the default setting in many Lemmy communities.
The older I get the less patience I have for actual morons. if someone wants to put words in my mouth I don't have to be there for it. I just block and move on.
That first one is where I feel I've seen myself and others get downvoted more than anything else listed here. Maybe it is recency bias from that one thread the other day lol.
Honestly though in all actuality there are very few topics where nuance does exist like with guns for example: it's a very nuanced issue and calls for bans without acknowledging the reality that for many in America relying on the justice and police systems is not always a good or even safe option when it comes to personal safety, but at the end of the day you either ban them or you don't and any extra asterisks are minutiae, so people don't really care about your personal reasons they just want to know what side you fall on in the conflict.
So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying "what if we rape but only sometimes?" on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.
Every topic has nuance.
Every. Single. Topic.
There is even nuance when talking about nazis. Like the fact that they rose to power by giving people economic solutions prior to speed running pure evil. That doesn't anything that they did was good, because the nuance is in how they implemented those economic actions. The small details that made it work so they could rise to power at that point point time in that location.
Nuance doesn't mean good or evil, just complexity and more details than most people think about. Sometimes it isn't super relevant, and can be used to distract from the high level details, but it is still there. Nuance with racial disparity is keeping in mind that a lot of racism is implemented in different ways regionally, while still being racism.
That isn't nuance. That is weaponized compromise.
The fiddly details about consent and coercion in relation to rape would be about nuance.