What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don’t think it’s bad behavior in the first place, or don’t care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here…
One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it’s small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do “Top Day” on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don’t like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m going to lock this one as it’s causing too much conflict.
AND FLOYD CHUCK’S FUCK CLEAN IT UP SEETHE AND JANNIES GUCCI LOAFERS FANCY GERMAN CAR FOR FREE DILATE FOR FREE CHUCK’S JANNIES ON LEMMY FOR FREE CITY SLICKER SEED COPE SNEED COPE COPE ON LEMMY FLOYD FLOYD CITY SLICKER JANNIES CHUCK’S ON LEMMY AND JANNY SUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE SNEED HOT POCKETS CITY SLICKER CHUCK’S CITY SLICKER SUCK CLEAN IT UP ON LEMMY SNEED’S ON LEMMY FLOYD FLOYD FUCK ON LEMMY COPE COPE
What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most?
Anything that contradicts the hateful propaganda of the American ruling class. Or if you write something progressive and anti-imperialist. For example, If you say that modern Ukraine is a corrupted right wing state, you get downvoted immediately. Or if you don’t share their hatred of Russia, China, Communism and anything that is somehow different from their racist AmeriKKKan empire. Even from the anticommunist comments here, it’s clear. Lemmyworld have a huge nazi problem.
Anytime I mention something vaguely positive about religion. I’m a former religious studies scholar who studied comparative religions. I have two degrees in the subject. I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial: the main thing I usually write is that you cannot usually say that a religion is a monolith - they are pretty complex phenomenon with many variations within them. You can say that Salafis are the totality of Islam. You can’t say that evangelicals are the totality of Christianity. You can’t say 969 in Burma is the totality of Buddhism. You can’t say Hindutva is Hinduism. You can’t say that the Settlers on the West Bank are the totality of Judaism. Religions without any variation or complexity usually die after a generation or two. I don’t just have these arguments online, I am used to have them with students and with friends. But nuance has few safe harbors on the internet…
Wrong politics. Too dry of satire. Too absurd of memes. Pictures of Charles III.
I can’t imagine going out of your way to downvote people like that. I don’t have an interest in cigars so I just ignore those communities. If I went around downvoting post in communities I have a problem with, I’d be doing that all day.
Right? If you don’t like the subject matter, just block the community. No point in pissing on every post in a very small, niche, mostly harmless community.
Should see my blocked communities list. Granted 80% is extremely niche porn or non-English speaking, it’s still very easy to not care and tap three dots, tap Block Community. A really big part of Reddit actually being good was curating the feed and Lemmy is no different. Why wouldn’t someone want to see only stuff they care about when going on Lemmy? Way more effort to downvote lol
Either nuance in a topic people are very black and white about or not being able to figure out how people can read things as the opposite of what I wrote.
Only happened a couple of times, no regrets.
The older I get the less patience I have for actual morons. if someone wants to put words in my mouth I don’t have to be there for it. I just block and move on.
Honestly though in all actuality there are very few topics where nuance does exist like with guns for example: it’s a very nuanced issue and calls for bans without acknowledging the reality that for many in America relying on the justice and police systems is not always a good or even safe option when it comes to personal safety, but at the end of the day you either ban them or you don’t and any extra asterisks are minutiae, so people don’t really care about your personal reasons they just want to know what side you fall on in the conflict.
So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying “what if we rape but only sometimes?” on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.
Every topic has nuance.
Every. Single. Topic.
There is even nuance when talking about nazis. Like the fact that they rose to power by giving people economic solutions prior to speed running pure evil. That doesn’t anything that they did was good, because the nuance is in how they implemented those economic actions. The small details that made it work so they could rise to power at that point point time in that location.
Nuance doesn’t mean good or evil, just complexity and more details than most people think about. Sometimes it isn’t super relevant, and can be used to distract from the high level details, but it is still there. Nuance with racial disparity is keeping in mind that a lot of racism is implemented in different ways regionally, while still being racism.
So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying “what if we rape but only sometimes?” on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.
That isn’t nuance. That is weaponized compromise.
The fiddly details about consent and coercion in relation to rape would be about nuance.
Heh, I get down votes from both sides a fair bit. In one part I am supportive of views, but raise obvious issues in other areas. This makes the For team upset. The Against team hates me too because my stance is on the For team’s side. The result is an inbox full of fine examples of how in-fighting destroys the grass while the other side of the fence has no idea they’re apathetically winning.
Almost all of this comes down to people attempting to express their self-assessed virtuosity as superior to others, or they are driven by a manipulative fallacy—argumentun ad populum is a big one in echo chambers—causing them to easily sway closer to extremes with little critical thought first.
This is why we are supposed to discuss and not argue, remaining constantly open to exploring and contemplating new information. It is not about who is right or wrong, rather the discourse and learning from it. But that’s not the default setting in many Lemmy communities.
Yep, I still make the misstake from time to yime and try and give a resonable take on a rant post when I feel like they are too unfair.
Latst time was a few days ago when I responed to a person in a Linux community ranting about how Windows 11 sucks because he didn’t know how to use it properly and that it had the audacity to not include drivers for 20 year old equipment.
I got massively downvoted and after I explained that I was an IT tech that didn’t run Linux on my main machine, I was weirdly called out and some idiot claimed that you can’t be an IT tech if you are not running Linux as your main computer OS.
It was kinda funny, I was bashed contiously by the open community for a minor disagreement, while I believe that I stayed polite throughout the conversation
Linux users drive me crazy. They clearly see that Windows users try to use Linux like it’s Windows and encounter problems. Why can’t they see that trying to use Windows like it’s Linux will have the same issues?
You can be an IT technician with Windows on your main machine. Whether you should be is a different question.
If my needs were better served by Linux on my main machine, then yeah, I’d go Linux, but since Windows better suit my needs at the moment I don’t.
I did run Linux as my main OS for about two years, but then my needs changed and I went back to Windows.
Asking people to see nuance here and the rest of the web is the worst. You’re either left or right. Urban or not. Up or down. There is no in between, partial solutions are useless. Drives me bonkers
I reckon it’s the issue of pseudo-anonymity combined with the lack of tone in a text post. If you’re talking IRL it’s much clearer that you’re making a joke or whatever, but all that gets lost in text. Also you generally know who you’re talking to IRL, whereas online you don’t know if that comment was written by a professor of ethics or a teenager who watched a single video on the topic and is parroting opinions they are now convinced are correct.
What a constrictive outlook on human dynamic and expression.
What’s interesting is that the language allows multiple meanings. The commenter above can either be driven bonkers by presence of nuance or the lack of it and both interpretations are correct.
The first sentence can be seen as being against nuance or it can be seen as being against the online experience of asking for nuance.
The next sentences can be seen as arguments against nuance or examples of behaviour encountered when asking for it.
And the final bonkers can either be against the use of nuance or the repeated responses to it use.So without further clarification, we can’t really be sure which stance the commenter implies.
With only these two situations presented, it’s a 50/50, left or right choice, so I’ll go ahead and presume it’s the latter, since that seems to be more likely encountered in online chats.If the commenter meant that a black/white mindset drives them nuts, then I redirect my comment, in the sense that:
- I agree, it’s nuts.
- My comment applies to people with that mindset.
If you call both sides right/wrong when both sides are right/wrong, both sides downvote you.
Mention a third option, middle ground, or reasonable compromise is a downvoting.
Tell them to chill, you might have well stuck a hornets nest up you ass. There’s a reason you occasionally see people just admitting they were wrong or changing their mind get sent to the front page, its just rare.
That first one is where I feel I’ve seen myself and others get downvoted more than anything else listed here. Maybe it is recency bias from that one thread the other day lol.
Oh, hell yeah.
Anything political or anywhere connected to something that could be culturally attached for some people. Especially when people start comparing one evil to another and try to say one’s worse because we’re used to doing the other and accept it as normal, so we should completely ignore how it’s barbaric as fuck and just address the one topic that’s more politically or culturally unacceptable or convenient to support.
Hey, how about we acknowledge that they’re both bad, and they can both be equally bad and work on correcting the one culturally accepted one while it’s politically convenient to address the one that we can agree is evil*, too.
Being right 😂
I too suffer from always being the most correct person in every thread I visit 😮💨
Funny how that works
Anything slightly “feminist”. You know, like pointing out that women do the majority of unpaid care work. Or saying it’s not nice to objectify women. Or sometimes mentioning the word women will do it.
You’d think a niche social media network populated by tech obsessed weirdos would be a bit more inclusive.
Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the “not all men”, “I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations” crowd.
I remember on Reddit once I commented a very vague description of a very personal experience I had with SA. Not fucking joking, people were defending this person they knew literally nothing about, except for the fact that I had said “oh yeah, I’ve experienced SA”.
I haven’t seen anything that bad on Lemmy yet so hopefully it stays chill.
I’m so sorry to hear that. Anyone with a shred of integrity approaching the issue will see that the statistics do not point to some pervasive false accusation culture, but rather a systemic issue of SA perpetuated primarily toward women for almost all of human history. It doesn’t mean that any other types of issues should be discarded, but reddit would have you think that every other rape accusation is false, and that all the true ones are against men.
It’s just an obvious bias on their part that is continually perpetuated by men dominating the platform on the mainstream subs. Lemmy has been better in that regard, because I think folks here are a little better about checking their biases for better discussion.
It’s better, but very far away from good. My comment and the other one mentioning the same thing are already the ones with the most downvotes in this thread. So thanks to the downvoters for proving my point, I guess.
I’m guilty of this because I genuinely don’t see why “not all men” is bad. As an example, I see a concerning amount of women who emotionally abuse their husbands or boyfriends publicly in subtle ways, but there isn’t a huge culture around avoiding all women. As a dude, saying that “not all men” is negative doesn’t seem that different from saying “I’m not racist, but…” or “I’m not sexist, but…” because the conversation never seems to be about men with red flags or the people in power who don’t do anything when SA is reported.
What am I missing or not getting?
to kind of sum it up, I think “not all men” tends to be kind of a red flag in the same vein as “all lives matter”. Not quite as bad, and obviously it’s contextually different as “not all men” refers to feminism rather than race relations, but I think it kind of makes the point as a metaphor.
I’m with you. I spent a LOT of time in r/TwoXChromosomes before moving to lemmy to try and understand that commmunity, and their arguments for why “not all men” is bad basically boiled down to “we’re tired of having to include that at the bottom of every post, just let us rant.” Which like, okay… but you’re spreading information and culture by making a public rant post. If you refer to “men”, that by default means “men in general”, not “some men”. So yes, you really should specify which ones you’re talking about every time. The exception is if you do specify a subset of men or even singular man, in which case, yes, “not all men” comments are unnecessary at worst.
Let’s leave aside the labels (sexist, racist, etc) for a moment, because these conversations tend toward applying/avoiding those and it just loses a lot of nuance.
Let’s metaphor this, because I think that helps. Is it possible for someone with millions of dollars to have a truly bad day? Of course it is. Is it possible for them to be hurt by someone with way less money than them? Obviously, yes. Positions of privilege never fully insulate anyone from hurt or harm, and those in worse positions can perpetuate harm. That’s fully understood and accepted.
I don’t think anyone with integrity would say that women are in a position of power relative to men. Women have been systemically and systematically oppressed for virtually all of human history. A woman even being able to talk back to a man without severe physical consequences is an insanely recent development at scale in our world. There are still dozens of countries that are not letting women wear what they choose, marry who they choose, go to school. Men (as a group) have never been subjected to anything remotely close to anything like this, and in fact have perpetuated it for all time.
Now, there are some whackos out there who hate all men because of that. They’re super, super rare, and they’re wrong. Most women are indeed wary about random men, especially if they have experienced assault or harassment, but that is a far cry from hating all men.
To boil it down, there’s a huge historical and modern difference in the way the genders/sexes are treated, and that cannot be ignored just so we can try to achieve the utopian world of no distinction. We have work to do as a society, as genders, and as individuals to repair this gap together. Good men belong right next to us, doing that work. And every good man I’ve ever met has willingly done so. Instead of asking “why are you avoiding me?”, they give us space and support. Instead of asking “why not men?”, they do the work to support fellow men instead of asking women to do it for them. Instead of saying “not all men”, they actively engage in not being those men and are content in that.
I pointed out that it was silly how Barbie made Ryan Gosling more of a star at the Oscars than any woman and got downvoted for it.
Asking why you’re getting downvoted is usually the easiest way to get downvotes.
But I often wish I would get a comment about downvotes. It’s easy enough to see why I’m getting downvoted when I post stupid shit, but sometimes I feel like even the most uncontroversial post or comment will get at least one downvote. I want to know when I’m wrong, so I can learn!
Like, the other day there was a post getting downvoted to oblivion and nobody told OP anything. I commented my reason and OP actually seemed to be learning from that, edited the post and the downvotes stopped accumulating.
I’ve seen completely normal and innocuous statements heavily downvoted here. Some people seem to just downvote everything and other people seem to downvote anything that already has downvotes. But one thing is for certain, it’s treated as a like/dislike button, not as a meter for content that does or doesn’t contribute to the subject.
I don’t think either of the popular behavior descriptions of “upvote if it contributes” or “upvote if you like it” really describe why most people upvote/downvote. My personal downvote criteria is more of a checklist:
- Is it unnecessarily cruel?
- Is it misinformation, or significantly misleading?
- Is it something so tired and overused that I don’t think it should be posted?
- Is it completely nonsensical?
- Etc.
If any of those are true, depending on the severity I’ll leave it be or downvote. I’d imagine most people are similar.
Those are all reasons I downvote too, but I’d lump them all into the “doesn’t contribute to the conversation/community” category. I’ll also report something if it’s dangerous misinformation, or very hostile towards an individual.
I had a conversation with someone about one of my downvotes posts, which helped to understand yet another stupid derailing tactic that terrible people use to stifle conversation. I really appreciated their feedback, even if I didn’t see any way to avoid the misunderstanding.
Mentioning downvotes. Or upvotes. The first rule of vote club is…
Have fun and be yourself :)
No smoking?
downvote liberally?
When I reply to a comment with a laugh or what have you. I like them too know I laughed but since I’m not adding to the conversation I guess I’m getting voted down. I do it anyway.
I wish either in addition to or in place of votes, we could tag a post or comment with a small fixed selection of emojis. To signify it was funny, cool, thoughtful, etc.
And then maybe even filter or sort posts based upon the metrics that arise from the above.
I’d be down with that for sure!
You go back to Facebook damn you. ;)
The truth man! *nails self to cross
My most downvoted one should be about Nintendo and Yuzu, I think. I don’t agree with some of their overly aggressive methods, but I argueed against emulation of the current gen and don’t think it is wrong for them to try and stop it (which of course didn’t work, that’s a different topic). Sucks for Citra and Pizza though.
Feminists’s subjects,
Transgender’s subjects,
Minority’s subjects,
Leftists’s subjects,Yep, world is fucked.
You’ll get downvoted for Right-leaning subjects farrrrr more quickly and harshly than ever espousing any kind of Left-leaning viewpoint.
What? Are you even on the same platform as us? Those are all popular, heavily upvotes subjects on Lemmy.
Can I be honest? Religion. Anything related to it, somehow will get someone downvote me. Even if I just mention “God” or something. I get that I should “separate the church from the state” or I should be secular here or whatevs, and I respect that. It’s not like every time I mention I force it down to everyone’s throat!
Tbh I wanted to make a post that greet everyone on Lemmy that are doing Ramadhan fasting at first, but now I don’t even feel like doing that. There’s no point of posting it, I guess, if it got downvoted and no one wants to see it.
I guess this means that Lemmy isn’t much different from Reddit…
Lemmy really isn’t that different from reddit at all, its just got more Linux memes. All the problems that exist on reddit outside of the IPO exist on lemmy in a smaller fashion, and sometimes not so smaller.
Yeah, mentioning anything Christian, or saying something was taken out of context when someone quotes the Bible, instantly turns into a debate and how I’m pro slavery. It just goes off the rails.
Tbh its such a complex topic that unless someone has studied it extensively/experienced it, they can’t really understand the extreme nuance behind it, and also the fact is true that people who claim themselves as ‘religious’ are mostly pieces of shit
I see myself as a practicing person but frankly the people who drive me nuts are always the people who follow the same faith, and tbh I think this might have to do with conservatism and the refusal to listen to others/accept you were wrong rather than religion itself, people somehow refuse to believe they are wrong even if you show it from their own scripture
Some blame is still on lemmy though, people somehow don’t seem to have any knowledge on this subject and make the most absurd claims and also somehow get upvoted to heaven, and I don’t bother correcting because its no good, ig this is just conservatism as well but of a different sort, unless u are an atheist, you are stupid/dumb
Ramadan Mubarak if you are involved though! I have always found it very fun!
Lemmy is Reddit Extreme. Only the people who reacted the strongest to Reddit’s policies move(d) over.
This is very true. You even got a down vote for saying it.
Well I would like to wish you and anyone else who’s celebrating a Happy Ramadan.
Thank you, sorry for being negative.
Happy Ramadhan for those who celebrate it!!
I don’t hate you for being a Muslim, I feel sorry for you. You can’t choose what you believe, and your natural personality combined with your experiences and upbringing made you a Muslim. You are negatively impacted by Islam’s restrictions - such as Ramadan, for example.
But I also feel sorry for all the non religious people religion harms, and more so.
