= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on The ethics of eating meat - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Downvoted, because this is far too deeply nested with identity politics. Should it be? Nothing should be. But a lot of things are, including diet.
ETA: Downvote retracted because things have so far gone better than I initially expected, so my objection was incorrect.
Moral arguments are generally full of all sorts of nonsense. Looks like an honest and more competent than usual attempt to get LessWrong.
Downvoted.
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.
I upvoted your first post despite disagreeing with it for this very reason. That being said, expecting people to not downvote posts they disagree with based on meta reasons isn't going to work. This is just another reason we should rework the karma system.
I don't mind the downvotes - most of my upvotes were for rubbish reasons, so downvotes for rubbish reasons are hardly anything to complain about - but I do care about the message sent to other users, that groupthink is more important than information.
You may not mind them, but the effects of upvotes and downvotes are not symmetric, particularly for newcomers.
Did somebody send that message? The OP? Me? Western Union?
This brings to mind another reason for my response:
What did that mean? You want to discourage topics that some people feel strongly about?
You.
No, I desire to support the community norms against said topics, because Chesterton's Fence and also my early experiments into political discourse here, while they didn't go as badly as some people expected, also didn't go well, either.
I downvoted the down vote, not the explanation of it.
What you should do depends on what you are trying to accomplish. That's up to you to figure out.
Note that I didn't do what you suggested was the way to interpret my action either.
I didn't just downvote, I downvoted, and gave my reason for it. Which is similar to what you did. Are we having fun yet?
To the point, I thought you were being a dick with your downvote, and thought a downvote in response was the appropriate response. Retaliating against dickishness is not the same thing as initiating dickishness.
Don't you end up waving dicks at each other, anyway? X-D
You don't wave them around, you slap them on the table for comparison.
To me too. I upvoted the OP.