13 ms·

So you're against people expressing their opinions in response to your own?

ignoramceisblis 6y ago
The poster stated nothing of the sort. You're conflating "expressing opinions" (by clicking a button) with: making it less likely for the poster's expression to ever be seen.
- achileas 6y ago
  Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion. What all this concern trolling really sounds like isn't an actual defense of values of free speech, but rather sheltering someone from the speech of others.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    > Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion. You seem to be of the opinion that the downvotes are more important than the comment they are downvoting: They are not. They are at best, equivalent, and deserve no more special recognition than the comment itself; yet the fact that a comment gets buried as a result, gives those downvotes a weight greater than that of the subject comment. Because if that weren't the case, you'd recognize that those downvotes are ALSO apparently entitled to a private platform. If it's good for one, it is good for both, and it is equivalent to argue that the downvotes aren't entitled to a platform either, and you're left at square one, without a meaningful conclusion. Maybe, just maybe, that isn't a useful approach to take.
rukittenme 6y ago
I think the OP argued pretty explicitly that a well researched comment, that violates the orthodoxy, is down-voted until it is removed from public discussion. I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he's "against others expressing their opinions".
- thephyber 6y ago
  For better or worse, the up/downvote buttons are used to express an opinion -- that is the primary purpose. The problem is that any crowdsourced curation feature uses significant downvotes as a signal for spam or content which otherwise violates the site policies.
- Latty 6y ago
  The opinion that someone isn't worth listening to and choosing not to amplify their words is an opinion like any other. The whole cancel culture thing stems from people who believe that they don't just have freedom of speech, but rather the right to force others to listen. If a community dislikes what you say and chooses to make that content less visible in response, that's perfectly reasonable. You are not being censored, you are being rejected.
- achileas 6y ago
  Downvoting is an expression of opinion. Opinions aren't owed platforms and never have been. Are all magazines anti-free speech because they don't publish everyone? And besides, "well-researched" is highly subjective in the best of cases, and in ones like this is usually not accurate in any sense.

The poster stated nothing of the sort. You're conflating "expressing opinions" (by clicking a button) with: making it less likely for the poster's expression to ever be seen.

achileas 6y ago
Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion. What all this concern trolling really sounds like isn't an actual defense of values of free speech, but rather sheltering someone from the speech of others.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  > Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion. You seem to be of the opinion that the downvotes are more important than the comment they are downvoting: They are not. They are at best, equivalent, and deserve no more special recognition than the comment itself; yet the fact that a comment gets buried as a result, gives those downvotes a weight greater than that of the subject comment. Because if that weren't the case, you'd recognize that those downvotes are ALSO apparently entitled to a private platform. If it's good for one, it is good for both, and it is equivalent to argue that the downvotes aren't entitled to a platform either, and you're left at square one, without a meaningful conclusion. Maybe, just maybe, that isn't a useful approach to take.

rukittenme 6y ago

I think the OP argued pretty explicitly that a well researched comment, that violates the orthodoxy, is down-voted until it is removed from public discussion. I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he's "against others expressing their opinions".

thephyber 6y ago
For better or worse, the up/downvote buttons are used to express an opinion -- that is the primary purpose. The problem is that any crowdsourced curation feature uses significant downvotes as a signal for spam or content which otherwise violates the site policies.
Latty 6y ago
The opinion that someone isn't worth listening to and choosing not to amplify their words is an opinion like any other. The whole cancel culture thing stems from people who believe that they don't just have freedom of speech, but rather the right to force others to listen. If a community dislikes what you say and chooses to make that content less visible in response, that's perfectly reasonable. You are not being censored, you are being rejected.
achileas 6y ago
Downvoting is an expression of opinion. Opinions aren't owed platforms and never have been. Are all magazines anti-free speech because they don't publish everyone? And besides, "well-researched" is highly subjective in the best of cases, and in ones like this is usually not accurate in any sense.