Yea i deleted the comments because they weren’t constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what’s the point.
It’s an unusual scenario that I’ve found is very typical of this particular platform and I’m very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It’s particularly felt on Lemmy. It’s probably trivial to you, but it’s so frequent in my experience here that I’m beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?
For instance, I’m really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?
Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?
What aspect of the statement:
“down votes are not compelling”
made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?
What intrigues me, is when people using batshit stupid singular examples like- how ignorant it is to find similarity in two people that correctly use math to illustrate commonality with Nazis, as an argument in defense of someone showing a direct commonality with Nazis-
And then arguing against their own point in another thread.
You really need to keep better track of your arguments. It’ll save you the embarrassment of having to delete your hypocrisy.
The guy is a shit stirring troll. He likes to hide behind mods, while yelling at them. Any disagreement is a fight and boy does he hate a fight. Meta misses him as he’s the perfect little engagement goblin.
You’re obsessed with this singular logical example I provided but you refuse to answer my main question. It’s odd.
I’m going to ask again: what about someone declaring “down votes don’t affect behavioral outcomes” made you go straight to: “wow. You have so much in common with nazis”.
I’ve asked this like three or four times, and each reply you write focuses only on the bad logic about the analogy I provided earlier.
Why won’t you answer my main question? Is it because it makes you seem unhinged? I’m not interested in judging you. I’m just curious why? Why was that the first thing that you thought to write? Why won’t you answer this question? So far you’ve only talked about the analogy I gave and it’s been like three or four replies. I’m really curious.
Yea i deleted the comments because they weren’t constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what’s the point.
It’s an unusual scenario that I’ve found is very typical of this particular platform and I’m very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It’s particularly felt on Lemmy. It’s probably trivial to you, but it’s so frequent in my experience here that I’m beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?
For instance, I’m really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?
Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?
What aspect of the statement:
“down votes are not compelling”
made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?
What intrigues me, is when people using batshit stupid singular examples like- how ignorant it is to find similarity in two people that correctly use math to illustrate commonality with Nazis, as an argument in defense of someone showing a direct commonality with Nazis-
And then arguing against their own point in another thread.
You really need to keep better track of your arguments. It’ll save you the embarrassment of having to delete your hypocrisy.
So you don’t have an answer for why you escalated so fast to name calling. It’s just second nature to you. Got it.
The guy is a shit stirring troll. He likes to hide behind mods, while yelling at them. Any disagreement is a fight and boy does he hate a fight. Meta misses him as he’s the perfect little engagement goblin.
I see. This makes sense. I was hoping for some complex mysterious motivation for these types of comments. Moving on I guess. 🙂
You’re obsessed with this singular logical example I provided but you refuse to answer my main question. It’s odd.
I’m going to ask again: what about someone declaring “down votes don’t affect behavioral outcomes” made you go straight to: “wow. You have so much in common with nazis”.
I’ve asked this like three or four times, and each reply you write focuses only on the bad logic about the analogy I provided earlier.
Why won’t you answer my main question? Is it because it makes you seem unhinged? I’m not interested in judging you. I’m just curious why? Why was that the first thing that you thought to write? Why won’t you answer this question? So far you’ve only talked about the analogy I gave and it’s been like three or four replies. I’m really curious.