= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
philh comments on The ethics of eating meat - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (59)
You're downvoting an explanation of a downvote because you don't like the reasons given? So am I to interpret this to mean that next time I shouldn't give an explanation, and should just downvote the post, rather than giving anybody an opportunity to voice disagreement and debate the relative merits of a given post?
Nice community norms, there. Shame if something were to... happen to them.
Downvoted for proposing a norm that can be trivially abused.
(Not actually downvoting, just being snarky because I don't have time to unpack my objection right now. I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but norms are hard.)
I'm not proposing a norm, I'm pointing out that this is the norm which is being enforced by this behavior.
I interpreted you as proposing a norm of "don't downvote downvote-explanations".
If that's not what you're going for, fair enough, but my point still seems relevant: one behaviour encourages bad norms, but the opposite behaviour also encourages bad norms, so we need to be careful.
Ah, yes, except I'd see it less as "proposing" and more "supporting a pre-existing norm".
Personally I don't think downvote explanations should be voted on at all, but that would be proposing a new norm.