this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
123 points (81.5% liked)
Fediverse
17776 readers
45 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, according to you, the people who are adding the notes to their posts are paranoid and it's not okay because it's apparently not, as you say, an "intuitive emotion" response that they don't need to justify. Instead they are doing it to themselves...
Yet, the people who are getting upset about downvotes simply have no control over their emotional reaction. Furthermore, you say that it is everyone who downvotes people that are being negative and directly causing their emotional response and it is everyone else's responsibility to only do things your way...
Great logic... I can see that you refuse to acknowledge that this line of reasoning is contradictory and flawed. As I said, good luck on your crusade against the big mean numbers. ๐
By the way, it does show when a comment has been edited.
This is very unproductive. Your comments started out well but this comment is laden with strawmen.
I'm saying that people who edit their posts to specifify that they have only edited grammatical mistakes stems from a perception that others may be skeptical about whether they have edited their post to trick people about what they originally wrote, is paranoid behaviour.
The intuitive emotion I was referring to was the feeling of rejection from the community for having a different opinion.
Difference being one is percieved, the other is evidently real, as I can see every time I reply to you.
I never stated that it is directly causing their emotional response (though in some small cases it is), but I did say it was a contributing factor on a greater scale.
Again, I'm not dictating anything, I'm merely trying to explain the correlation between community input and community output. There are communities on reddit where you can see both in full swing. Positive communities foster positive communities.
It is your assertion that my reasoning is contradictory, yet, I feel no cognitive dissonance and have no difficulty clarrifying my position.
You can choose how long we argue for, you can say goodbye whenever you want, but I'm always free to reply.
Sure, try to dismiss my responses as simply being unproductive now. It's obvious you are intentionally trying to run me around in circles to wear me down.
As I have pointed out in every response, you are just contradicting yourself; making assumptions and judging one group of people for their (inconsequential) reactionary behavior while trying to gatekeep for others because of their emotional reactions... You are only proving my point that you are either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that your reasoning is flawed and you have not made a good argument for your case.
I will repeat it again: One: Consider treating everyone equally, not just because you agree or disagree with them or because you sympathise more or less with their specific situation. Two: Downvotes can be disabled. This is not a concern for Lemmy or it's users; everyone gets a choice.
All of your opinions are your own, just stop trying to act like you are holier than everyone else when you have already been proven to stoop down to being a negative and offensive person yourself.
Im not dismissing all your responses, just the previous one. You're getting worked up over nothing.
You are making more assertions as time goes on. You don't get to just declare that I'm "obviously trying to wear you down" or that you "have pointed out in every response that I'm contradicting myself" or that "unwilling or unable to acknowledge my reasoning is flawed", (which also presupposes my reasoning is flawed, something in don't agree with you on).
You don't get to just declare you're right about all this stuff, you have not demonstrated your claims. I'm more than happy to concede the failures of my epistemology, there's no shame in it, I'm just not convinced that you are right (except that I was under the impression edited posts weren't known, whoops!).
I agree with your first consideration, but not your second. This isn't about the individual (though I do care that they're respected), this is about the community as a whole. It goes beyond one persons feelings. A self policing community sometimes works great to keep away bigots, but I believe when that's the job of moderators, it creates hostile environments, whether obvious or subconscious.
I don't believe I'm better than anyone else, after all, I wasted long enough entertaining this conversation, as you pointed out, I stooped to rolling in the mud with you.
Whilst I appreciate the pair of you demonstrating an intellectual vivacity and facility for debate that is rarely found on reddit, perhaps I might share a bit of my own wisdom, gleaned from decades spent in online communities.
Namely, know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em; there is no shame in agreeing to disagree. Especially when the subject of disagreement is something so minor.
It may not be possible to formulate a scientifically complete theory of the psychological effects of making edits and downvotes to Lemmy comments and posts. And thus, it seems possible for two smart people to have different perspectives on the issue.
There are situations where someone is clearly incorrect and spending paragraph after paragraph to demonstrate that is warranted, or at least justifiable. But I don't think this particular conversation really needed to be like that.
The thing about being rational and smart is that you constantly have to balance applying those traits to the external world and applying them to your own behavior. In this case, you two were so caught up in the particulars of the topic at hand that you were forgetting the context of the conversation, and thus leaving your rationality in question from a different angle. If either of you had been able to recognize this angle without my help, you could have effectively "won" the argument by merely accepting that it was possible to disagree on this topic without admitting to being wrong.
You're absolutely right, no objections from me.
I enjoy a good debate, it's always unfortunate when it starts out well but then turns sour.
I'm sorry you read all that. I appreciate the detailed reply.
Tbh, I didn't read all of it, I started skimming at some point.
I think we all need to consciously deprogram our brains from the reddit mindset. We are no longer anonymous specks in a massive crowd, shouting at the top of our lungs for attention and recognition. We are now part of a small community of talented and intelligent individuals and it behooves us to conduct ourselves as such.
But you're both good, this was honestly much more civil than what things used to devolve into on reddit. I don't even mind some highbrow intellectual banter from time to time ๐
It's fun to debate, but I think it's important to focus on the details. It's not as fun when the other person uses inflammatory language because they assume malicious intent.
As I mentioned in the OP and in multiple replies here, I want to cultivate a community of civil discourse too. As you mentioned, this place need not remind me of reddit, but it was nostalgic in a morbid way.
Being able to articulate a complex thought and have someone else really respond to what I am saying is an absolute gamechanger for Lemmy right now.
On reddit, I was so sick of typing out a long, well-reasoned argument, only for the other user to ignore everything I said and respond with trolling, sarcastic answers. Here, people actually have some level of self-respect, and they usually engage in good faith.
See my response here.
Wasn't sure how to tag you.