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.
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.
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.
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
You can be an IT technician with Windows on your main machine. Whether you should be is a different question.
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.
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.
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.
That isn’t nuance. That is weaponized compromise.
The fiddly details about consent and coercion in relation to rape would be about nuance.
Asking why you’re getting downvoted is usually the easiest way to get downvotes.
But I often wish I would get a comment about downvotes. It’s easy enough to see why I’m getting downvoted when I post stupid shit, but sometimes I feel like even the most uncontroversial post or comment will get at least one downvote. I want to know when I’m wrong, so I can learn!
Like, the other day there was a post getting downvoted to oblivion and nobody told OP anything. I commented my reason and OP actually seemed to be learning from that, edited the post and the downvotes stopped accumulating.
I’ve seen completely normal and innocuous statements heavily downvoted here. Some people seem to just downvote everything and other people seem to downvote anything that already has downvotes. But one thing is for certain, it’s treated as a like/dislike button, not as a meter for content that does or doesn’t contribute to the subject.
I don’t think either of the popular behavior descriptions of “upvote if it contributes” or “upvote if you like it” really describe why most people upvote/downvote. My personal downvote criteria is more of a checklist:
- Is it unnecessarily cruel?
- Is it misinformation, or significantly misleading?
- Is it something so tired and overused that I don’t think it should be posted?
- Is it completely nonsensical?
- Etc.
If any of those are true, depending on the severity I’ll leave it be or downvote. I’d imagine most people are similar.
I had a conversation with someone about one of my downvotes posts, which helped to understand yet another stupid derailing tactic that terrible people use to stifle conversation. I really appreciated their feedback, even if I didn’t see any way to avoid the misunderstanding.
Anything slightly “feminist”. You know, like pointing out that women do the majority of unpaid care work. Or saying it’s not nice to objectify women. Or sometimes mentioning the word women will do it.
Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the “not all men”, “I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations” crowd.
I remember on Reddit once I commented a very vague description of a very personal experience I had with SA. Not fucking joking, people were defending this person they knew literally nothing about, except for the fact that I had said “oh yeah, I’ve experienced SA”.
I haven’t seen anything that bad on Lemmy yet so hopefully it stays chill.
I’m so sorry to hear that. Anyone with a shred of integrity approaching the issue will see that the statistics do not point to some pervasive false accusation culture, but rather a systemic issue of SA perpetuated primarily toward women for almost all of human history. It doesn’t mean that any other types of issues should be discarded, but reddit would have you think that every other rape accusation is false, and that all the true ones are against men.
It’s just an obvious bias on their part that is continually perpetuated by men dominating the platform on the mainstream subs. Lemmy has been better in that regard, because I think folks here are a little better about checking their biases for better discussion.
I’m guilty of this because I genuinely don’t see why “not all men” is bad. As an example, I see a concerning amount of women who emotionally abuse their husbands or boyfriends publicly in subtle ways, but there isn’t a huge culture around avoiding all women. As a dude, saying that “not all men” is negative doesn’t seem that different from saying “I’m not racist, but…” or “I’m not sexist, but…” because the conversation never seems to be about men with red flags or the people in power who don’t do anything when SA is reported.
What am I missing or not getting?
Let’s leave aside the labels (sexist, racist, etc) for a moment, because these conversations tend toward applying/avoiding those and it just loses a lot of nuance.
Let’s metaphor this, because I think that helps. Is it possible for someone with millions of dollars to have a truly bad day? Of course it is. Is it possible for them to be hurt by someone with way less money than them? Obviously, yes. Positions of privilege never fully insulate anyone from hurt or harm, and those in worse positions can perpetuate harm. That’s fully understood and accepted.
I don’t think anyone with integrity would say that women are in a position of power relative to men. Women have been systemically and systematically oppressed for virtually all of human history. A woman even being able to talk back to a man without severe physical consequences is an insanely recent development at scale in our world. There are still dozens of countries that are not letting women wear what they choose, marry who they choose, go to school. Men (as a group) have never been subjected to anything remotely close to anything like this, and in fact have perpetuated it for all time.
Now, there are some whackos out there who hate all men because of that. They’re super, super rare, and they’re wrong. Most women are indeed wary about random men, especially if they have experienced assault or harassment, but that is a far cry from hating all men.
To boil it down, there’s a huge historical and modern difference in the way the genders/sexes are treated, and that cannot be ignored just so we can try to achieve the utopian world of no distinction. We have work to do as a society, as genders, and as individuals to repair this gap together. Good men belong right next to us, doing that work. And every good man I’ve ever met has willingly done so. Instead of asking “why are you avoiding me?”, they give us space and support. Instead of asking “why not men?”, they do the work to support fellow men instead of asking women to do it for them. Instead of saying “not all men”, they actively engage in not being those men and are content in that.
I’m with you. I spent a LOT of time in r/TwoXChromosomes before moving to lemmy to try and understand that commmunity, and their arguments for why “not all men” is bad basically boiled down to “we’re tired of having to include that at the bottom of every post, just let us rant.” Which like, okay… but you’re spreading information and culture by making a public rant post. If you refer to “men”, that by default means “men in general”, not “some men”. So yes, you really should specify which ones you’re talking about every time. The exception is if you do specify a subset of men or even singular man, in which case, yes, “not all men” comments are unnecessary at worst.
to kind of sum it up, I think “not all men” tends to be kind of a red flag in the same vein as “all lives matter”. Not quite as bad, and obviously it’s contextually different as “not all men” refers to feminism rather than race relations, but I think it kind of makes the point as a metaphor.
Anything that’s true but people don’t like.
It’s very misused as the disagree button rather than the not relevant button.
Just talk about how you genuinely enjoy Microsoft Windows as an operating system.
