Unenforceable wish: no limit on downvotes, but people should have to EXPLAIN them. I often learn more from opposing opinions than from statements of agreement. If I say something unpopular, I want to know WHY it’s so widely disliked. Maybe I’m unaware of something important.
All this extended conversation about all the downvotes and not a single person responded to the reason I gave for downvoting right up there. Merrick Garland’s DOJ absolutely does not care about politics, and the implication that this guilty plea has to do with the Biden Admin wanting to influence the election in November is fictional.
Lemmy dogpiles much more than reddit ever does. All one can do is upvote but it’s moot.
Downvotes should max out at 5.
eta:
pud(proof)ding
Unenforceable wish: no limit on downvotes, but people should have to EXPLAIN them. I often learn more from opposing opinions than from statements of agreement. If I say something unpopular, I want to know WHY it’s so widely disliked. Maybe I’m unaware of something important.
Forced troll feeding. Brilliant idea…
lol good point. I’m a goddam genius!
Ironically, your reply is what I’m talking about. Tell me why I’m wrong! Point out what I missed!
Just saw your edit…
…but I did explain…
…so I’m confused…
It’s ironic because thoughtful criticism is helpful. The “tell me why I’m wrong” bit is a remark meant for others, not you.
I’m pretty sure that sometimes it’s a result of how the voter feels. Other times i’m not so convinced it’s humans voting.
All this extended conversation about all the downvotes and not a single person responded to the reason I gave for downvoting right up there. Merrick Garland’s DOJ absolutely does not care about politics, and the implication that this guilty plea has to do with the Biden Admin wanting to influence the election in November is fictional.
As of now 19 folks responded with upvotes. The lack of comments is because you nailed it and nothing else needed to be said.
…because we weren’t responding to you?