4 ms·

I upvoted you :D People have absolutely every right to have feelings. But this goes exactly to the point: why do people make it personal, when only facts are

I upvoted you :D People have absolutely every right to have feelings. But this goes exactly to the point: why do people make it personal, when only facts are being discussed? Specifically facts about economics - repeatedly reported on mainstream media. (not here, as I for one, abundantly indulged in irony)

anenefan 2y ago
Well I would say a lot of the down voting you're observing in certain responses, most likely isn't about the topic or the which ever members down voting being invested with a strong opinion. In fact I'd guess they are not at all passionate to give a rats, they simply don't care for what they might see as rude behaviour or breaking rules or etcetera ... as an example, say this place HN, was like a library that has a big large notice at the door of one of its reading rooms asking patrons to observe a number of rules. The top of list is no ideological discussions, followed by keep talking to a minimum and if so, quietly - along with a number of other minor rules. For the most part quiet conversions in the room are tolerated even if they do get a little loud at times. However when area's conservation gets much louder others around due to previous arguments, some patrons mostly perceive the louder conservation to be something of the nature of a passionate disagreement of an ideological nature and may seek to inform staff -- while they're unsure exactly of nature of the conservation, they are fairly sure the noise level is not befitting of a quiet area -- they though might miss that one of the people they are complaining about was just a bit deaf and was merely briefly passionately explaining a really good fishing trip to an old acquaintance, it makes little difference to the outcome. The offenders are asked to leave by the staff ... obviously it might feel like some people just didn't care for fishing, but common sense should dictate that it probably wasn't about the fishing trip. I though had earlier made the point there also surely are some sub groups with vested interests and the nature of how they vote and why is not exactly known -- trying to make sense of the way votes go at time is too hard, sometimes it is as it is. Imagine the above example, their initial conclusion it was about the fish would be right if in fact a large group of vegans or animal cruelty had taken offence that one of the fish landed they felt was mishandled.

anenefan 2y ago

Well I would say a lot of the down voting you're observing in certain responses, most likely isn't about the topic or the which ever members down voting being invested with a strong opinion. In fact I'd guess they are not at all passionate to give a rats, they simply don't care for what they might see as rude behaviour or breaking rules or etcetera ... as an example, say this place HN, was like a library that has a big large notice at the door of one of its reading rooms asking patrons to observe a number of rules. The top of list is no ideological discussions, followed by keep talking to a minimum and if so, quietly - along with a number of other minor rules. For the most part quiet conversions in the room are tolerated even if they do get a little loud at times. However when area's conservation gets much louder others around due to previous arguments, some patrons mostly perceive the louder conservation to be something of the nature of a passionate disagreement of an ideological nature and may seek to inform staff -- while they're unsure exactly of nature of the conservation, they are fairly sure the noise level is not befitting of a quiet area -- they though might miss that one of the people they are complaining about was just a bit deaf and was merely briefly passionately explaining a really good fishing trip to an old acquaintance, it makes little difference to the outcome. The offenders are asked to leave by the staff ... obviously it might feel like some people just didn't care for fishing, but common sense should dictate that it probably wasn't about the fishing trip. I though had earlier made the point there also surely are some sub groups with vested interests and the nature of how they vote and why is not exactly known -- trying to make sense of the way votes go at time is too hard, sometimes it is as it is. Imagine the above example, their initial conclusion it was about the fish would be right if in fact a large group of vegans or animal cruelty had taken offence that one of the fish landed they felt was mishandled.