4 ms·

That take is so interesting. Where you see a bunch of “sheeple” voting stuff up without even looking at it, I see a bunch of thoughtful people trying to valida

That take is so interesting. Where you see a bunch of “sheeple” voting stuff up without even looking at it, I see a bunch of thoughtful people trying to validate you for something promising you tried to share. To me, it reads like the community isn’t stingy with Free Internet Points and is happy to share some with you since you seemed to be looking for them. I’m not sure what you brain is trying to do for itself in leaning into the cynicism and writing all that off as “sheeple” behavior.

PaulHoule 5y ago
The thing is I have mixed feelings about it. That article that was successful despite being unavailable had a clickbaity headline on the subject of institutional legitimacy. I can't get a single vote on meaty articles related to the topic like articles about Jurgen Habermas and his work. I think for the most part when I write and post better things I get a better score. Frequently I acknowledge that things I wrote that got downvoted deserved to get downvoted. There are still times I think the community can be easily played by submitting certain things that are pretty thin and still get upvoted. On the other hand, I've found that posting or commenting anything about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action such as "the collective action problem is the asteroid that has mankind's name on it" gets a poor reception that I think is undeserved (It has broad applications across political science, one of them is that the common understanding of how "minorities" relate to majorities is completely wrong, something that gets discovered in the aftermath of elections in the US and immediately forgotten...) Then there are those days that I just want to write a shitpost and I am proud about it in a perverse sense and don't care about getting voted down.

PaulHoule 5y ago

The thing is I have mixed feelings about it. That article that was successful despite being unavailable had a clickbaity headline on the subject of institutional legitimacy. I can't get a single vote on meaty articles related to the topic like articles about Jurgen Habermas and his work. I think for the most part when I write and post better things I get a better score. Frequently I acknowledge that things I wrote that got downvoted deserved to get downvoted. There are still times I think the community can be easily played by submitting certain things that are pretty thin and still get upvoted. On the other hand, I've found that posting or commenting anything about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action such as "the collective action problem is the asteroid that has mankind's name on it" gets a poor reception that I think is undeserved (It has broad applications across political science, one of them is that the common understanding of how "minorities" relate to majorities is completely wrong, something that gets discovered in the aftermath of elections in the US and immediately forgotten...) Then there are those days that I just want to write a shitpost and I am proud about it in a perverse sense and don't care about getting voted down.