R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I've thought of that myself, no thumbing until you've posted X times. I think Robert has decided not to invest any additional resources in code changes so I doubt there is going to be any change.

Given how worthless the voting is due to misused simply removing or jumping around the voting subroutines would not need to used up more then a few minutes of a programmer time.

1 Reply

@longjon,

Quote:

It must be a Qanon insurrection.

On a message board? More likely a single fat guy in his parents' basement. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@engineer,

I guess the obvious question then is, is this sort of response also warranted for conservatives who are down voted here?

Is what's good for the goose also good for the gander?

Oh who am I kidding, radical leftists don't apply standards equally to people who disagree with their weirdo dogma.

1 Reply

@longjon,

If you think "conservatives" are being bot downvoted, go for it. I have not observed the same pattern of downvoting, but maybe the anti-"conservative" bots are just smarter.

2 Replies

@engineer,

hmmm....

How about this gentleman here?

https://able2know.org/topic/287301-126#post-7108604

Seems as though he is consistently gang down voted. Do you have the same righteous indignation for his situation?

I mean, since leftists aren't hypocrites at all.

And does he whinge about like you folks do here?

2 Replies

@longjon,

I think he comes by his downvotes honestly and probably considers them a point of pride but if you think they come from bots you can whine on his behalf. Nothing wrong with posting an unpopular opinion, I've done so myself and been sure the downvotes I received were real. It's the ten votes in ten minutes thing across dozens of posts, even ones on grammar or puzzles that stands out.

0 Replies

@longjon,

Quote:

Seems as though he is consistently gang down voted.

Not "gang down voted", you paranoid —they are individual decisions.

You seem to think that this is solely political in nature. It's not. Nor is it in many other posts by others, both left and right, that are voted down, one member-one vote, in countless threads, political and non-political. It's because the comments are purposefully written in an insulting, obnoxious, and challenging manner. There are quite a few characters who get down-voted with impressive regularity — one of them actually repeats the same responses, word-for-word. No, that's not the kind of post that generates — or merits — popular acclaim.

You (you in general) can either choose to have a conversation or you can provoke an argument. It's usually pretty obvious. I'd be interested to see if you could provide an example of a relatively innocent response getting more than 1 or 2 down-votes simply for its political perspective.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Here's what you wrote about the same thing on another thread.

I know you're generally quite confused about life, in general, but this is totally the opposite of what you're saying here. Are you (as I'm more convinced) a response bot?

Quote:

Yup. What we are seeing here is someone successfully preventing certain posts being visible without members making the extra click to view them. Someone's obviously on a mission of some sort as it's only a few political threads where this effort is made. I don't know how difficult it would be to do away with the thumbs entirely but eliminating the threshold of visibility would make the reputation abuse moot. It's sort of funny — you just know the person doing this is a self-appointed defender of freedom and enemy of censorship!

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I have not observed the same pattern of downvoting, but maybe the anti-"conservative" bots are just smarter.

Nah. It's your innate hypocrisy. You would have to be blind to have not noticed that conservatives were targeted first.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

Here's what you wrote about the same thing on another thread.

Not the same thing at all.

The two statements discuss different aspects of the thumb phenomenon. They aren't contradictory at all. Cases where individual posts are voted down by members, one at a time, are not the same as the manipulation of the process by one person. You can see when this happens — suddenly a post gets 5 or 6 negatives at once — when there are only two or three people actively posting.

Quote:

Are you (as I'm more convinced) a response bot?

How would that work, who would employ it, and why?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

engineer wrote:
I have not observed the same pattern of downvoting, but maybe the anti-"conservative" bots are just smarter.

Nah. It's your innate hypocrisy. You would have to be blind to have not noticed that conservatives were targeted first.

Let me guess, you think normal people don't notice you voting yourself into a superior position that ONLY YOU finds satisfying. I need to log off before I giggle myself into a crippling hernia.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

What normal intellects think that they notice has little to do with reality. Normal people should contract with smart people to do their thinking for them.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Given how worthless the voting is due to misused simply removing or jumping around the voting subroutines would not need to used up more then a few minutes of a programmer time.

If there's one thing that you can rely on in programming, I've gathered, it's that assumptions that something would just take "a few minutes" to fix — "it's just one line," etc — are pretty much always wrong.

0 Replies

This statement yesterday by Maxine Waters, recommending a course of action if Derek Chauvin isn't found guilty, is, of course, perfectly okay and not at all a call to violence:

"We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business," she said.

From: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

This is what Rep. Waters (I'm not a fan) said about her comments in an interview:

Quote:

In an interview with theGrio that was published on Monday morning, Waters said she was "nonviolent" and said her remark about being "confrontational" was in regard to changing the justice system in the US.

"I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up," she said. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation."

Waters told CNN on Monday evening that her reference to confrontation was meant in the context of the civil rights movement's nonviolent history, saying that "the whole civil rights movement is confrontation." When pressed on the judge presiding over Chauvin's trial having said that her remarks could be grounds for an appeal, Waters replied, "Oh no, no they didn't."

I don't think her comment is that incendiary nor do I think she's particularly influential. People "confront" issues all the time — confrontation isn't a synonym for violence or rebellion.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Did you think Trump's words before the Capitol riot were incendiary?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Do I think Trump's words before the Capitol riot were incendiary? He directed an angry, armed mob to march on the Capitol. The results would indicate that to be the case.

Waters' comments apparently had little effect when she made them, as she was referring to something which had not as yet happened — if she had meant to incite violent activity, she failed. As I said, "confrontation" isn't a synonym for violence or rebellion.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You have a nice double standard going there.

I condemn what Trump said as irresponsible, incendiary and contrary to the good of the country.

I condemn what Maxine Waters said as irresponsible, incendiary and contrary to the good of the country.

I don't understand the difficulty of condemning extremism as extremism no matter which side it comes from.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

But, maxdancona, confronting something doesn't imply violence. I'm not defending Waters — I think the statement was gratuitous. I'm also familiar with her style of political performance. She's one of those lightning rod politicians who enjoys the spotlight, attracts negative comments, and, because of where they originate, doesn't care.

Quote:

We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.

I don't see that as "extremism". I don't see it as "incendiary". I don't see it as particularly helpful or particularly insightful either. But peaceful protests are not illegal. I don't see that she's called for anything more than that. Trump, as you remember, wanted to prevent Congress from accepting the results of an election — illegally.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I think you are being generous. Those comments can easily be read (and will be) as promoting violence especially by those who want to talk more about how violent the civil rights marchers are instead of how violent the police are. I'm not sure what would prompt her to say something like that especially before a verdict is returned.

2 Replies

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Quick Links

My Account

able2know