Downvoting to knock over the game board

@livinglava,

No, it's the rules of engagement for A2K.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

posters are presumably not children in age

not true, this is a 13+ site...

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

No, it's the rules of engagement for A2K.

I downvote posts when they are just petty interpersonal attacks/insults.

If a post makes a point that I just happen to disagree with because of my political preferences, I don't downvote that because I realize that it contains information that can be food for thought for others to consider, even if they disagree with it.

For example, if a post explains how the writer believes the current government is mishandling something, I might not agree but it is different than if the post is just an anti-Trump insult/attack, and then I might vote it down for containing hate without saying anything logically/critically reasonable.

All these posts that are just propagating insults/negativity are not good discussion. Calling Trump, 'plump,' or using other insults make for terrible, hurtful discussion and I can't believe whoever moderates this site allows it.

If there were people posting negative comments about Pelosi's looks all the time, it would feel hurtful toward everyone who empathizes with her as a person. The problem is that all the anti-Trump people can't/won't empathize with him as a person, despite their political differences with him. Imagine if Pelosi had made her ice-cream freezer comment and people started talking about her plumping up as a result. It would be hurtful, not contain politically-meaningful discussion, and downvoting wouldn't be knocking over the game board, just legitimately noting that the post contains bad information.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Why are you so obsessed with downvoting behavior on an internet forum?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You can up or down vote any way you want. You can reiterate your position any time you want. You can disagree with how the moderators do their job. You can also leave this site any time you want.

What you can't do is tell others how to write a response or use a function of the site at their disposal. Well, you "could" but your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

Life's not fair, Simba.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You can up or down vote any way you want. You can reiterate your position any time you want. You can disagree with how the moderators do their job. You can also leave this site any time you want.

I know what posters CAN do, but the question is SHOULD they?

Quote:

What you can't do is tell others how to write a response or use a function of the site at their disposal. Well, you "could" but your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

I can tell them what they should do, and they can disagree.

Quote:

Life's not fair, Simba.

If you believed that, why would you care about social justice?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I know what posters CAN do, but the question is SHOULD they?

Yes. People are free to express their views, just like you. It may be up voted or down voted since the function has been offered by the designers of the site.

Quote:

I can tell them what they should do, and they can disagree.

Yep, that is true. And people disagree with you a lot.

Quote:

If you believed that, why would you care about social justice?

This isn't a mutually exclusive issue. That's when caring about social justice means just that much more.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Yes. People are free to express their views, just like you. It may be up voted or down voted since the function has been offered by the designers of the site.

I just think there is downvoting going on as a form of political discrimination; i.e. that posts are getting downvoted not based on the quality of the content but because the voter is against the political identity of the poster.

Quote:

Yep, that is true. And people disagree with you a lot.

Saying you disagree 'a lot' just implies emotional bias. If you disagree with something, you explain why. Making discussions into emotional battlegrounds is counterproductive.

Quote:

Quote:
If you believed that, why would you care about social justice?

This isn't a mutually exclusive issue. That's when caring about social justice means just that much more.

You said life isn't fair and I took that to imply that I should give up on expecting fairness; but if you believed that, why wouldn't you expect all the chosen victims of social-justice causes to just give up on expecting fairness? I.e. why wouldn't you just tell them to 'get over it,' as you are telling me?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I just think there is downvoting going on as a form of political discrimination; i.e. that posts are getting downvoted not based on the quality of the content but because the voter is against the political identity of the poster.

And...

So what?

Quote:

Saying you disagree 'a lot' just implies emotional bias. If you disagree with something, you explain why. Making discussions into emotional battlegrounds is counterproductive.

Sometimes it is, sure. But other times not. Political discussion IS emotional. Even YOU get emotional with your responses. Again, so what?

Quote:

You said life isn't fair and I took that to imply that I should give up on expecting fairness; but if you believed that, why wouldn't you expect all the chosen victims of social-justice causes to just give up on expecting fairness? I.e. why wouldn't you just tell them to 'get over it,' as you are telling me?

If Life were a level playing field, the expectation of "fairness" would not be an issue. Since it is not, laws were created.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
I just think there is downvoting going on as a form of political discrimination; i.e. that posts are getting downvoted not based on the quality of the content but because the voter is against the political identity of the poster.

And...

So what?

It's bias and you're harming basic democracy by trying to eliminate political diversity. Do you want to have a single-party fascist society where everyone has to fall in line and no one is allowed to express political dissent without facing some form of retaliation or discrimination? Is that what you want?

Quote:

Saying you disagree 'a lot' just implies emotional bias. If you disagree with something, you explain why. Making discussions into emotional battlegrounds is counterproductive.

Sometimes it is, sure. But other times not. Political discussion IS emotional. Even YOU get emotional with your responses. Again, so what?[/quote]
The more I act on my emotions, the more aggressive and discriminatory I behave. Should I embrace my own worst behavior because it follows naturally from emotion? No, I'm supposed to put effort into rising above emotion and basing my decisions on higher ethics. Shouldn't everyone?

Quote:

Quote:
You said life isn't fair and I took that to imply that I should give up on expecting fairness; but if you believed that, why wouldn't you expect all the chosen victims of social-justice causes to just give up on expecting fairness? I.e. why wouldn't you just tell them to 'get over it,' as you are telling me?

If Life were a level playing field, the expectation of "fairness" would not be an issue. Since it is not, laws were created.

So basically you think that if there is a level playing field then people can't complain about unfairness no matter how badly they get beaten? Well at what point do you just tell them the playing field is level to make them accept unfairness? Or do you always let anyone who feels things are unfair claim that it's because the playing field is not level?

What exactly are you saying? That unfairness is only unfair for people for whom the playing field is not level? E.g. so depending on your identity category, you can be treated unfairly in whatever way but if your identity category is subject to a non-level playing field, then unfairness is a problem?

Aren't you just discriminating about unfairness mattering for some and not others?

You basically just want the world divided into identity category teams and you want to complain that the playing field isn't level whenever your team doesn't win. That's a twisted, collectivist/racist way of thinking about liberty and justice; but I guess I knew that you were a Democrat so I shouldn't have expected better; after all life isn't fair, right?

0 Replies

There is an easy solution that can be implemented by a minority of people here.

Thumb up everyone.

When I see a post that is 0 or below, I thumb it up as a matter of habit. If enough people do this, it will counteract the downthumb abuse collapsing threads.

Posts don't disappear until they are at -5. So the up thumbing minority starts with the advantage. Just start up thumbing everyone, even posts with which you disagree.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I know what posters CAN do, but the question is SHOULD they?

Yes they should use the voting buttons any way they want.

There can be a variety of reasons why someone may do the down thumbs. It could be as you say childish reasons. So what? I almost consider several down thumbs as a badge of honor. You might have actually struck a cord with someone. Better than just sitting at a 1 --

Personally I like the down button for thread titles as it "hides" them and makes it easier to shift through things I would like to read.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I just think there is downvoting going on as a form of political discrimination; i.e. that posts are getting downvoted not based on the quality of the content but because the voter is against the political identity of the poster.

That is what YOU think. Others may think differently.

And sometimes I think you rub people the wrong way - as you tend to appear to argue for the sake of argument. You may feel differently, but it certainly comes across that way to me and I have noted that several other people have thought the same thing.

My opinion - and this is strictly my opinion - you get downvoted often because you appear to argue and throw in buzz words without really having a solid argument. I do premise this as my opinion and from my observations - I could start pulling some of your statements to prove this out but to be honest I really do not care to do so.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Thumb up everyone.

And see here is another point of view of using the thumbs - Just like Outback - no rules ! Just right!

0 Replies

@Linkat,

I lied here is an example of arguing for the sake of arguing and not really having any facts to support it and why people tend to disagree with you - you obviously have no understanding of subject of true mental health issues and making assumptions and pulling out arguments which are not there.. i.e. unless you live under a rock you understand the meaning of ..you go back to living...so unless you are obtuse you understand it is not literal; there was never any mention of involving older adults that are at high risk...etc.

You cause others to want to downthumb you because you throw things in that any reasonable person would understand and you stretch the meaning so you can argue against it.

@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

There is always that chance. You take precautions, but at some point you go back living.

If you had stopped living, you'd be dead.

Quote:
If you are an athlete, nothing is worse than not playing.

Sure there is. No one wants to kill their grandparents or someone else's grandparents because they took unnecessary risks. People want to be told the risk is acceptable and then to be told it wasn't their fault that other people got infected and/or died; but the reality is that we are responsible for making choices that are not needs but wants.

Quote:
You and I know many people may feel this an extreme, but it is a part of her. She knows what it feels like to have to sit out and not play and it caused havoc on her mental state. She tore her ACL and was unable to play for almost two years and a year with very limited exercise. For someone used to playing a lot - it actually can cause severe anxiety and depression.

We all need exercise. Sport is a crutch for many people, who can't get motivated to exercise without it.

Quote:
Not sure if this is what caused her anxiety but it was around that time that she starting have serious issues.

Kids are difficult in general. It's difficult to motivate them in this culture we have created where everything is about entertaining them and motivating them. There is an old fashioned culture that just involves choosing what is right and doing it, even though it may not be interesting or attractive for you. If you are stuck inside, for example, you do yoga or something else that you can do to train your body inside. If you can't play sports with other athletes, you can still go out running/jogging/hiking/biking, dance in the yard, or whatever.

Quote:
As a result, we moved her to a smaller school and she sees a counselor regularly. For someone like her - she needs to play to feel good. Mental health is as important as what you would traditionally call physical or medical health. Unless you personally have had to deal with this sort of thing - it can be difficult to understand - I know as I was on the other side before and I would hear of someone like that and just think why don't they just snap out of it - why? Because it is not that simple.

It is not simple, no. Kids are difficult and stubbornly insist that they can't do thing because they have the power to resist discipline/authority, and because they don't want to make choices and commit to actions using willpower that goes beyond what's easy for them. It is not simple or easy. Sometimes they don't come around to taking responsibility and independent action until their 20s or 30s, if ever. Life is a maze that many people never master.

Quote:
Any way - yes - this is good for her and she needs this. Sometimes you need to weigh the risk. There are likely some families that will decide it is not for them - which I completely understand. But I know my child and she lives for this type of play and competition and team work. It is a part of her and why she wants to play college ball. Not because she expects to be this professional player or anything because she loves it and in her words cannot imagine not playing.

Just realize the risks. If you downplay them to justify letting her do what she wants, that won't stop the kids from exchanging pathogens and transmitting them through to each others' grandparents. History is going to remember this time as one where people made choices about whose sacrifice was worth whose comfort, and those who survive to old age will have to look back and reflect on what sacrifices they endured (or not) to do what they could to stop the disaster

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

livinglava wrote:

I just think there is downvoting going on as a form of political discrimination; i.e. that posts are getting downvoted not based on the quality of the content but because the voter is against the political identity of the poster.

That is what YOU think. Others may think differently.

And sometimes I think you rub people the wrong way - as you tend to appear to argue for the sake of argument. You may feel differently, but it certainly comes across that way to me and I have noted that several other people have thought the same thing.

My opinion - and this is strictly my opinion - you get downvoted often because you appear to argue and throw in buzz words without really having a solid argument. I do premise this as my opinion and from my observations - I could start pulling some of your statements to prove this out but to be honest I really do not care to do so.

Those are superficial reasons to downvote.

Basically what it sounds like you're saying is that you don't fully read/understand what I write, but you notice some words that seem like 'buzzwords' to you, so you vote it down.

If you think an argument I make isn't solid, it might just be that you don't understand it fully. That happens a lot. People think they understand what they read, but when they actually respond to it, it becomes clear that they don't really understand what they're arguing against.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

I lied here is an example of arguing for the sake of arguing and not really having any facts to support it and why people tend to disagree with you - you obviously have no understanding of subject of true mental health issues and making assumptions and pulling out arguments which are not there.. i.e. unless you live under a rock you understand the meaning of ..you go back to living...so unless you are obtuse you understand it is not literal; there was never any mention of involving older adults that are at high risk...etc.

You cause others to want to downthumb you because you throw things in that any reasonable person would understand and you stretch the meaning so you can argue against it.

You misinterpret my post-response as intending to directly speak to the person's personal situation I am responding to. I obviously don't know anything about the poster's family situation besides what I read about in the post, so my response should be taken in a general way, not as some kind of professional therapist's advice.

If you would just read what I posted without getting defensive about the other poster's position, you would see that I am expressing legitimate thoughts. You just don't like reading them because they do not pander in any way to the poster's personal situation.

I am not here to tell poster's they're ok or otherwise validate them. I am posting information that is relevant to them and/or others, but it is up to them to manage their own personal lives and families, obviously. They are not here looking for someone else to do that for them, but some may just be looking for validation for their bad ideas because that makes them feel better about them, but I'm not going to tell some alcoholic that it's ok for them to drink because they have an emotional disability that prevents them from surviving without drinking, because that would just be helping them rationalize their alcoholic behavior. They're going to do that either way, regardless of what I say, so why should I play into that?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I am not misinterpreting your post.

You wrote that my daughter should have done yoga or some other sport while indoors when I clearly wrote that she tore her ACL and could NOT exercise.

I said she went to therapist whereas you claim instead I should have disciplined her. What is there to misinterpret? Any reasonable person would surmise that the therapist would guide you how to handle someone with anxiety.

You are NOT giving legitimate thoughts - that is what I am stating. There is nothing relevant in your post if you say I should discipline my child that has anxiety - there is nothing relevant in your post when you say that a child that just has had an ACL and cannot exercise should do yoga to help their mental state.

I would agree with you though that your post does not pander to my personal situation - quite honestly your posts do not pander to any reasonable situation.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

I am not misinterpreting your post.

You wrote that my daughter should have done yoga or some other sport while indoors when I clearly wrote that she tore her ACL and could NOT exercise.

Why would you assume I know your daughter? You know that I am just a stranger making general statements about what anyone should do while being stuck indoors.

What do you expect? That I should acknowledge your daughter's exceptionalities without knowing her, just based on what I read someone claim over the internet?

Quote:

I said she went to therapist whereas you claim instead I should have disciplined her. What is there to misinterpret? Any reasonable person would surmise that the therapist would guide you how to handle someone with anxiety.

Taking someone to a therapist is a form of discipline. You are misinterpreting what I say by filtering it through a narrow lens. 'Discipline' refers to a wide array of things meant to change behavior in a positive way. You can't assume when I use a general word like 'discipline,' I am saying you shouldn't take your daughter to her therapist or that the discipline her therapist uses on her isn't good. I don't know you, your daughter, or her therapist.

Quote:

You are NOT giving legitimate thoughts - that is what I am stating. There is nothing relevant in your post if you say I should discipline my child that has anxiety - there is nothing relevant in your post when you say that a child that just has had an ACL and cannot exercise should do yoga to help their mental state.

I am just using the term, 'yoga,' in a general way to mean some form of exercise that doesn't involve movement. If you hold your arms in different poses for extended time, that could be a form of yoga that doesn't involve your legs; or if you simply lie down and lift your head in order to strengthen abdominal muscles. Obviously everyone has to experiment in their own situation with what works for them. If someone mentions yoga, it might stimulate you to think of a stretch or posture that could be helpful, or not; it's just internet discussion; you read it and then think for yourself. It is not authority to defer to or resist against deference.

Quote:

I would agree with you though that your post does not pander to my personal situation - quite honestly your posts do not pander to any reasonable situation.

I am definitely not a fan of pandering. I try to share insight so other, independent-thinking people maybe get stimulated to develop further insights on their own situation. Thinking in isolation, you sometimes get stuck and reading someone else's POV can get you thinking in fresh ways. If you could appreciate that, you wouldn't be using discussion as an opportunity to argue about someone else's post not applying to people's personal situations.

1 Reply

Downvoting to knock over the game board

Quick Links

My Account

able2know