3 ms·
I'm not sure why this comment is downvoted (at the time I started writing this) without any comments at all. To me it presents an alternative view and interpre
by hmwhy 7y ago
I'm not sure why this comment is downvoted (at the time I started writing this) without any comments at all.
To me it presents an alternative view and interpretation on the article. Even if I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments and/or how opinions are phrased, they do remind me that I should read things with caution, which is probably something that even the most cautious of us need to be reminded of every now and then.
I'm not entirely sure at what point one can start downvoting but I vaguely recall that it's a privilege that's given for having been recognised for a certain amount of contribution (presumably due to points). For this reason it seems irresponsible to downvote something, without commenting, just because it doesn't match your worldview and that you are too lazy to think of it as an opportunity to at least think about why there are people thinking differently.
- leftyted 7y agoThe post doesn't engage with the article, dismissing it as "blogspam" and claiming that the author is a "anti-renewable campaigner". It also pushes the claim that all scientists agree about the consequences of global warming, which is clearly not the case. What I find really irritating, though, is the idea that the media should make people scared and angry and push them toward action. That seems cynical, manipulative, and will probably backfire.
- shkkmo 7y agoI suspect it is downvoted due to tone and lack of actual informative content. The comment doesn't bother to challenge any of the assertions of the article but to attack the author and the publication. Those attacks would be much less likely to garner downvotes if informative counter points were also made.