Oof, the context is rough. If you made the joke 5 years ago no one would have batted an eye.
Is
TypeError: NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource.intentional?Strange… it works for me
It’s like how people in an information bubble post something and get encouraged by all of the people who think that same way, but the majority of people are actually against the idea.
Yeah, it really is like that, isn’t it?!
I don’t like platforms that do not allow negative feedback tbh.
The problem is that it’s publicly shown. Let me pull an old comment:
When you have an upvote/downvote structure, there is an incentive to not go against the grain and just post stuff that’s considered “acceptable” in the local community.
Not everyone treats the votes the same way as well. Some people downvote because they don’t agree with the content, the poster, just because they sound disagreeable or simply because the post is too much to read. You can apply the same myriad of methods to upvotes. Not one motivator is the same.
If we’d ditch showing the numbers and just have them work under the hood, discussions might start looking a lot more genuine.
Hexbear has downvoting disabled. Which is in part why they brigade people to express disapproval rather than merely use that.
It’s not really that they don’t allow negative feedback. They just prefer that if you do have negative feedback, you comment it instead of just downvoting and moving on.
Doesn’t that system make for incredibly obnoxious comment sections consisting only of people disagreeing and complaining + argumentative responders?
Normal comment sections are often bad enough already
It just replaces the down votes with comments. I don’t consider argumentative responders to be obnoxious either, so I guess it depends on what kind of environment you want.
I’m going to disagree with you there, because they love banning people who disapprove of their posts.
Which is the point. Kinda like how freedom of speech lets you say stuff, but you can still be kicked out of a BLM event for saying something racist. Rather, if you have something you don’t like about a post, just say it instead of just down voting, and they’ll judge you based on that comment.
This must be how tankies feel
Some background of this incident:
I made a post with a meme about a TV episode in which some evil aliens pretended to be friendly and share a vaccine, but the vaccine turned out to intentionally render the victims infertile so they would not be able to fight back when they began being enslaved. Unfortunately, I did not consider that to an outsider, the meme just looked like your garden variety vaccine misinformation/conspiracy. I was able to edit the title and add some context to the post body, so the post was able to “recover” as more people were able to see what the joke was intended to be. But initially, it was (understandably) down voted immensely. Just a funny misunderstanding.
I wonder if people just saw it in their feeds and didn’t see the community? Since with just a few words into this comment I knew exactly what episode you were talking about… And I am sure that if I had seen your meme on chevron7 without the added context I would’ve known immediately. Since those are such a good couple of episodes
So Stargate SG1?
Edit: for context though, my own downvoted posts tend to be genuinely unpopular. e.g. this one may arguably have the distinction of being the least popular post of that entire community, if you sort by controversial and see that it is the first one with double-digit total numbers. It doesn’t matter how that whole situation turned out - people just did not enjoy seeing it, like at all, though I indeed found it interesting.
Reminds me of when Jimmy Saville died and someone got massively downvoted for saying “But wasn’t he a paedophile?”. And then all the news came out about it. People hated him because he spoke the truth lol
Hrm, I suppose that would depend: did the person who said that really know somehow that he was a pedo (especially if it predated all the news stories then how would he? maybe the news stories were rerun a second time), or was it just a wild guess that turned out to be correct?
Anyway yeah, not many people seem to actually care about the truth - it is often painful, always seems to be difficult, almost always goes against the fantasy stories that we tell ourselves, etc.
And, amusingly, it turned out to be right.
I have never known Jon Stewart not to be. Unless he says in advance that he might be. His discipline, his willingness to listen to feedback, his dedication… all of that means that his wrong thoughts tend not to make their way on the air. Although this might have been before Jon Stewart’s airing of that episode?
I suppose it could have been wrong - like if Biden really did just have a cold or some such. But either way, the logical foundation that the article set forth intrigued me.
goodness I thought I was having some serious dejavu for a sec there
Lol you remember the original Chevron 7 post?
I was there, Gandalf…
yeah it was a trip lol
