this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
125 points (81.7% liked)
Fediverse
17849 readers
14 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
Numbers are not indicative of an emotion. It doesn't matter why someone downvotes. If they are going to be a "negative person" then they will do that regardless. I agree that everyone should make an effort to be kind and avoid being toxic, but saying that downvotes or "negative numbers" have such power is just people putting too much thought into it... Good luck with your crusade. Downvotes can be disabled by an instance admin. I would recommend anyone who cannot handle the negative numbers to consider joining one of those instances.
I think you might be underestimating how personal these numbers can be to some people. I'm glad they don't impact you, but many people, especially the upcoming generation, equate these numbers with their value.
Big numbers can make people feel validated, that their opinions are valued, or they're funny.
Negative numbers may result in disappointment or feelings of rejection.
I don't think negative people are "just negative". Toxicity pervades cultures which allow it to spread. Down voting is sometimes enough to act as a nucleation point. I've seen heated arguments start over accusations of down voting, which isn't isolated to their thread.
You said its more of an issue for the individual than the community, how much more?
I see this as a shared responsibility. The main reason is I'm convinced there's not much people can do about the issue of validation.
I see the validation as a double edged sword. Lots of people do legitimately need validation from strangers online, and I'm glad they have communities to go to, to feel better about themselves.
On the other side of it, is it can form into unhealthy comparison. It's the reason Instagram stopped showing the number of likes a few years back.
I think some reddit communities had a good idea for limiting the karma counter to 0, because negative karma definitely contributes to how people feel about themselves and the community.
I understand many people see it as self-policing, but if you ever visit r/vegan, you will see an extremely gatekeepy community which breeds toxicity. People who step in any direction are taking a step over the line, and it forces compliance via mob instead of allowing mods to handle bad actors.
Exactly, as I said, people should stop taking the numbers so seriously... To say that "it's just the way it is" doesn't help address the underlying issue and it won't stop "negative people" from being negative.
I've seen some of your replies to others on here as you've tried to defend your stance and you have resorted to claiming that it's their problem because of their "conspiracy mindset". I could just as easily make that same counterargument here but it is offensive and isn't productive.
You clearly don't want to discuss the real issues and just want to shove your opinions down people's throats.
I don't know how anyone is supposed to rationalise an intuitive emotion to themselves, let alone to other people. So saying people should just stop taking numbers so seriously is comparable to telling someone they should stop being shy.
Negative people will be negative for sure, but it really doesn't take much for an irrational person to become upset. Evidently, you're a rational person. It is often the case that rational people don't intuit irrationally minded people (curse of knowledge bias).
The conspiratorial mindset comment was not directed at anyone here. My point was that people feel that they need to prove their innocence in advance of by explaining why there's an asterix next to their comment. This is an extremely paranoid behaviour. I was being fallacious by saying it was a conspiratorial mindset, forgive me for being flamboyant.
As far as defending my opinion and shoving it down peoples throat, I don't think that's a charitable interpretation. I simply haven't been persusuaded, and I think its fine to explain why I don't see it that way.
On a similar note, if people should stop taking numbers so seriously, shouldn't they also stop taking seriously the implications of a stranger who assumes people are editing mundane comments maliciously?
Okay, I just typed up a much better response and then lost it into the Lemmy void, so sorry this will be much more to the point.
You are arguing two sides of the same issue based on your own personal opinions on each one. The issue being that people have certain psychological or behavioural issues. One: people who feel the need to leave a note on edited posts are paranoid. Two: people get upset by the number of downvotes.
First, I think your assessment about why people leave a note about their edits is incorrect. Even if they are doing it because they are paranoid, they should try to overcome that and possibly seek real world help. It is also such a minor thing that we should not try to create some "internet law" to justify criticizing them.
Second, if someone is getting that upset over downvotes, they should try to overcome that, and definitely seek real world help if they cannot cope. Being their gatekeeper will not solve any of these underlying problems and will not stop people from being negative. Again, instance admins can disable downvotes, so this is a non-issue with Lemmy.
The differences between these two things are people are people are either doing it to themselves, or others in the community are responsible.
All I was saying in the OP is that people don't need to clarify that they edited for typos because there's no way for people to know you edited your post.
It's all well and good to say "these people need help", they surely do, but the point I'm making is that there is also something we can do, if not for them, for the community generally.
In any case, this is not a petition to dictate anything, it's an appeal to be better to each other, because downvoting everyone who has a different opinion contributes to a bitter community. How much it contributes is speculative, but the value cannot be less than 1.
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. 👋
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 😅
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.