So basically, the consensus here is that sometimes being responsible about shutting down bad ideas, is not explaining exactly how someone is wrong, but rather it means firmly exclaiming “Siddowwwn!! SIDDOWWWN!!” — Whereas I remember on Hexbear that there was more worry about how downvotes could disproportionately affect certain groups, and that this worry was a part of the decision to disable them. Hexbear’s emote spamming doesn’t necessarily prevent people from seeing what the community consensus is, like darkcalling suggests, because once one person has commented an emote, then everybody else can just upvote that. It is clunkier, yes, but it’s meant as a deterrent.
However, if I can be completely honest, I had been noticing for a while that on Hexbear there were people sometimes saying things that to me seemed really half-baked, or even like drunk-and-stoned “just say shit” comments, so I had honestly been questioning whether disabling downvotes did sometimes also have a detrimental effect on the Quality of Discourse. There are after all eleven types of liberalism, several of which concern an attitude of not publicly coming forth with one’s criticisms, and it seems like a bit of a bad idea to assume that all self-proclaimed commies on the Internet have fully exorcised each of these eleven ghosts. It is very easy to think “I’ll let someone else handle this one” or “Well, a downbear seems a bit harsh for such a small issue, I have no ill will towards this person”.
Downvote-disabling definitely seemed like a good feature when I first came to Hexbear, because I’d had experiences previously of getting downvoted on Reddit and on my previous fediverse instances, which always left me thinking either “Huh? What? What’d I do wrong?” or “What’s-a matter you?” or “Ugh, these liberals are incapable of critical thought” — but in a sense I can see how it is a bit of a selfish, liberal perspective to not want to get “virtual glares” as if it’s others’ duty to educate me like I’m a little baby, or like my own ideas are always so important that they shouldn’t just be dismissed out of hand, rather than thinking about the health of the community as a whole.
I dunno, I guess downvotes enabled vs downvotes disabled is like the two emissaries of Java: equal in valor, at least until proven otherwise. Maybe the culture of Lemmygrad will make up for my previous issues with downvotes, but it’s still a change back to an old system which will require some readjustment, small as the difference actually is.
A bit of a tangent: I do a lot of posting in lib spaces, and if I get no downvotes I know I’m being a tailist. I’m not pushing their boundaries hard enough. The downvotes are important agitprop feedback.
So basically, the consensus here is that sometimes being responsible about shutting down bad ideas, is not explaining exactly how someone is wrong, but rather it means firmly exclaiming “Siddowwwn!! SIDDOWWWN!!” — Whereas I remember on Hexbear that there was more worry about how downvotes could disproportionately affect certain groups, and that this worry was a part of the decision to disable them. Hexbear’s emote spamming doesn’t necessarily prevent people from seeing what the community consensus is, like darkcalling suggests, because once one person has commented an emote, then everybody else can just upvote that. It is clunkier, yes, but it’s meant as a deterrent.
However, if I can be completely honest, I had been noticing for a while that on Hexbear there were people sometimes saying things that to me seemed really half-baked, or even like drunk-and-stoned “just say shit” comments, so I had honestly been questioning whether disabling downvotes did sometimes also have a detrimental effect on the Quality of Discourse. There are after all eleven types of liberalism, several of which concern an attitude of not publicly coming forth with one’s criticisms, and it seems like a bit of a bad idea to assume that all self-proclaimed commies on the Internet have fully exorcised each of these eleven ghosts. It is very easy to think “I’ll let someone else handle this one” or “Well, a downbear seems a bit harsh for such a small issue, I have no ill will towards this person”.
Downvote-disabling definitely seemed like a good feature when I first came to Hexbear, because I’d had experiences previously of getting downvoted on Reddit and on my previous fediverse instances, which always left me thinking either “Huh? What? What’d I do wrong?” or “What’s-a matter you?” or “Ugh, these liberals are incapable of critical thought” — but in a sense I can see how it is a bit of a selfish, liberal perspective to not want to get “virtual glares” as if it’s others’ duty to educate me like I’m a little baby, or like my own ideas are always so important that they shouldn’t just be dismissed out of hand, rather than thinking about the health of the community as a whole.
I dunno, I guess downvotes enabled vs downvotes disabled is like the two emissaries of Java: equal in valor, at least until proven otherwise. Maybe the culture of Lemmygrad will make up for my previous issues with downvotes, but it’s still a change back to an old system which will require some readjustment, small as the difference actually is.
A bit of a tangent: I do a lot of posting in lib spaces, and if I get no downvotes I know I’m being a tailist. I’m not pushing their boundaries hard enough. The downvotes are important agitprop feedback.
Interesting, I haven’t heard that term before, but that’s a good point. Are there any examples of your own tailism that you would like to share?
Examples of my tailism? But madam, a gentleman never tails.