Which is a good thing. What consequences should there be to having a bad take? Getting your comment pushed down from sorting as well as getting publically ratio’d and verbally lectured in replies by the members of small community you are part of is consequence enough IMO.
I don’t think the bad comment needs to be autoremoved/hidden just cause it has 10 downvotes or whatever that kind of thing encroaches on a censorship slippery slope. Theres a report button and moderators for anything actually against community guidelines.
I’d also say that removing bad takes instead of arguing against them can help further the belief in those bad takes because someone who believes in good faith might but be aware of counter arguments that might make them change their mind.
If only the proponents of ideas are allowed to discuss them in their own spaces, then that’s the only place where people curious about them will be able to find information.
And even if the one arguing the bad take refuses to consider other options, IMO public discussion forums are more about the lurkers reading them than those commenting, even if the latter makes up the entire visible community. Don’t argue for the sake of the one you’re disagreeing with, argue for everyone who thinks they might have made a good point but haven’t decided yet.
These last few days I’ve been thinking about your last comment about public discussions being about the lurkers and the value of having that exchange from an outside perspective.
Every now and again I have to pick the choice between engaging in an internet argument/ debate or ignoring them, taking a break from the internet, and touching grass. I usually pick the second. But I keep thinking of this comment and wondering if I shouldn’t put up more or a resistance instead even if my opinion is a ‘wrong’ one.
I dont know, a long time ago I decided that it was better for time and mental health to not really argue back and forth with people.
Im unlikely to unchange your perspective or exchange ideas in a meaningful way, much more so if were both perocupied with
defending our ideas while dismantling the others. I think about that guy who wrote 30 something different ways to ‘win’ an argument by various conversational/psychological tricks and finally understood that for a lot of people it’s about being ‘right’ and ‘winning a battle’ not intelectual honesty and coming to better understanding with the other person.
Why even bother on a certain group ideologies “home turf” discussion fourm,or against someone who lives to write 10 paragraph essays deconstructing everything you say just to prove how right they are.
So how much value is there to be gained by verbally resisting the community ratio, or trading five paragraph essays with someone who lives and breathes debating politics, compared to just taking the L and moving on with life?
That cuts both ways since there’s also not really any consequences to getting downvotes.
Which is a good thing. What consequences should there be to having a bad take? Getting your comment pushed down from sorting as well as getting publically ratio’d and verbally lectured in replies by the members of small community you are part of is consequence enough IMO.
I don’t think the bad comment needs to be autoremoved/hidden just cause it has 10 downvotes or whatever that kind of thing encroaches on a censorship slippery slope. Theres a report button and moderators for anything actually against community guidelines.
I’d also say that removing bad takes instead of arguing against them can help further the belief in those bad takes because someone who believes in good faith might but be aware of counter arguments that might make them change their mind.
If only the proponents of ideas are allowed to discuss them in their own spaces, then that’s the only place where people curious about them will be able to find information.
And even if the one arguing the bad take refuses to consider other options, IMO public discussion forums are more about the lurkers reading them than those commenting, even if the latter makes up the entire visible community. Don’t argue for the sake of the one you’re disagreeing with, argue for everyone who thinks they might have made a good point but haven’t decided yet.
These last few days I’ve been thinking about your last comment about public discussions being about the lurkers and the value of having that exchange from an outside perspective.
Every now and again I have to pick the choice between engaging in an internet argument/ debate or ignoring them, taking a break from the internet, and touching grass. I usually pick the second. But I keep thinking of this comment and wondering if I shouldn’t put up more or a resistance instead even if my opinion is a ‘wrong’ one.
I dont know, a long time ago I decided that it was better for time and mental health to not really argue back and forth with people.
Im unlikely to unchange your perspective or exchange ideas in a meaningful way, much more so if were both perocupied with defending our ideas while dismantling the others. I think about that guy who wrote 30 something different ways to ‘win’ an argument by various conversational/psychological tricks and finally understood that for a lot of people it’s about being ‘right’ and ‘winning a battle’ not intelectual honesty and coming to better understanding with the other person.
Why even bother on a certain group ideologies “home turf” discussion fourm,or against someone who lives to write 10 paragraph essays deconstructing everything you say just to prove how right they are.
So how much value is there to be gained by verbally resisting the community ratio, or trading five paragraph essays with someone who lives and breathes debating politics, compared to just taking the L and moving on with life?