I didn’t get it from what you said, I got it from the OP:
no easy way to post without getting downvoted, removed or criticized
no, you can’t tell whether downvoting is irrational, because it doesn’t provide its rationales for scrutiny. claiming that a down vote is “irrational” when you don’t know someone’s thought process means you’re saying that there is no way anyone could have any rational belief that the comment in question shouldn’t be surfaced or should be buried. you’re talking about “mobs” (a very emotive term) when there’s very little group dynamic to justify it. also, I think Reddit at-large is trash, but even I wouldn’t claim that TheDonald is representative.
this conversation is sort of an example. I disagree with you and I think your arguments are bad. but you’re saying that I must have “glazed” over what you said, as if there’s no possible way that someone could reasonably come to my position rather than yours.
when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter. there isn’t a neutral standard of “people should agree with me and surface my opinions by default”.
when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter.
I disagree that this is an ambiguity you have to accept. problems are easier to solve when they are known to everybody. And this is easier when they are explained properly.
I understand that it is sometimes hard to invest the time to explain these things, but i think it is worth it.
I didn’t get it from what you said, I got it from the OP:
no, you can’t tell whether downvoting is irrational, because it doesn’t provide its rationales for scrutiny. claiming that a down vote is “irrational” when you don’t know someone’s thought process means you’re saying that there is no way anyone could have any rational belief that the comment in question shouldn’t be surfaced or should be buried. you’re talking about “mobs” (a very emotive term) when there’s very little group dynamic to justify it. also, I think Reddit at-large is trash, but even I wouldn’t claim that TheDonald is representative.
this conversation is sort of an example. I disagree with you and I think your arguments are bad. but you’re saying that I must have “glazed” over what you said, as if there’s no possible way that someone could reasonably come to my position rather than yours.
when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter. there isn’t a neutral standard of “people should agree with me and surface my opinions by default”.
I disagree that this is an ambiguity you have to accept. problems are easier to solve when they are known to everybody. And this is easier when they are explained properly.
I understand that it is sometimes hard to invest the time to explain these things, but i think it is worth it.