3 ms·

(Downmodded on general principle: Every time I see a comment playing to the gallery by saying "I'll probably get downmodded for this", I vote it down. For the r

by gjm11 17y ago

(Downmodded on general principle: Every time I see a comment playing to the gallery by saying "I'll probably get downmodded for this", I vote it down. For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would.)

ars 17y ago
> For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would. Probably because you are not worried about either. As for the opening sentence, every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded. So it's a way of telling people: "you are going to hear ideas you don't agree with, so instead of reflexively downmodding [like you did], please actually read the message (and reply if you don't agree)".
- gjm11 17y ago
  Probably because you are not worried about either: I'd think the probability of either of them saying anything really harmful would be quite small, but it would be a lot higher in the case of Bush. every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded: perhaps that indicates that you're saying dumb things about Obama, then. (But, actually: I suggest that you do what I just did, and put "ars obama" into searchyc.com and look to see whether it's actually true that you get jumped on every time you talk about Obama. Doesn't look like it to me.) reflexively downmodding [like you did]: no, I thought about it carefully, applied a general principle that I'd arrived at earlier on the basis of rational reflection, and then downmodded you. And I also read and considered what you'd written, disagreed with much of it, and commented on one bit that seemed worth commenting on. What exactly do you think is wrong with that? (The reasoning behind the general principle: I'm-going-to-get-downmodded comments, in most venues, consistently seem to do one or more of (1) divert discussion onto meta-noise, (2) procure the sympathy-upvotes they're fishing for, while (3) not actually deserving those sympathy-upvotes. As such, they lower the quality of discourse. I wish to avoid this, because I prefer reading higher-quality stuff. Downmodding such comments when I see them pokes the system in the right direction; saying what I'm doing encourages other people to think about whether my policy is a good or a bad one -- and I expect that people who seriously consider that, whether they end up liking or disliking my policy, will typically come to share my general opinion of the poor-poor-me comments. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of that -- you are welcome to consider it a stinking blend of industrial-grade stupidity with military-spec bullshit -- but what it certainly isn't is "reflexive".)

by gjm11 17y ago

ars 17y ago

> For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would. Probably because you are not worried about either. As for the opening sentence, every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded. So it's a way of telling people: "you are going to hear ideas you don't agree with, so instead of reflexively downmodding [like you did], please actually read the message (and reply if you don't agree)".

gjm11 17y ago
Probably because you are not worried about either: I'd think the probability of either of them saying anything really harmful would be quite small, but it would be a lot higher in the case of Bush. every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded: perhaps that indicates that you're saying dumb things about Obama, then. (But, actually: I suggest that you do what I just did, and put "ars obama" into searchyc.com and look to see whether it's actually true that you get jumped on every time you talk about Obama. Doesn't look like it to me.) reflexively downmodding [like you did]: no, I thought about it carefully, applied a general principle that I'd arrived at earlier on the basis of rational reflection, and then downmodded you. And I also read and considered what you'd written, disagreed with much of it, and commented on one bit that seemed worth commenting on. What exactly do you think is wrong with that? (The reasoning behind the general principle: I'm-going-to-get-downmodded comments, in most venues, consistently seem to do one or more of (1) divert discussion onto meta-noise, (2) procure the sympathy-upvotes they're fishing for, while (3) not actually deserving those sympathy-upvotes. As such, they lower the quality of discourse. I wish to avoid this, because I prefer reading higher-quality stuff. Downmodding such comments when I see them pokes the system in the right direction; saying what I'm doing encourages other people to think about whether my policy is a good or a bad one -- and I expect that people who seriously consider that, whether they end up liking or disliking my policy, will typically come to share my general opinion of the poor-poor-me comments. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of that -- you are welcome to consider it a stinking blend of industrial-grade stupidity with military-spec bullshit -- but what it certainly isn't is "reflexive".)