Thoughts about debates, blocks, and downvotes
People block others. People post about blocking. People post about the people who post about blocking.
And now we have a buzz about downvoting. So, this got me to put some thoughts together.
Suppose I wanted to post a certain political opinion. Here are two versions of how I might do it.
Version 1: I think President X is/was a better president than President Y.
Version 2: Only a brainwashed idiot could fail to see that President X is/was a better president than President Y.
(OK, version 2 is not really my style, but hypothetically...)
Anyone would be well within their rights to block me in either case. Blocking, if nothing else, is a way to customize your feed so that you don't see things that detract from your experience here. If you blocked me, I would never conclude that it was because "you couldn't stand to hear the truth and are so pathetic."
If I used version 2, you might block me because of my hateful manner, rather than my political opinion. (There are even users here who I tend to agree with politically, but whose posts I dislike because of the tone.) So if you get blocked, it might not be because of what you said but because of how you said it. And in that case, griping about someone "not being able to stand hearing the truth" is a bit self-serving on your part, IMHO.
As for debating or arguing with what I posted: if I posted Version 1, then I think it is really out of line for you to respond with ad hominem insults toward me. On the other hand, if I posted Version 2, then I should be prepared to take whatever you dish out.
As for down-voting (which I am not planning on using anytime soon), I would reserve it for Version 2. Although we are reassured that the "penalties" for being downvoted are mild ones, I would not want anyone to be penalized simply for expressing views with which I disagree. But it might not bother me so much if the person were penalized for expressing those views (or views with which I do agree) in an adolescent bullying manner.
Just my opinions.
And now we have a buzz about downvoting. So, this got me to put some thoughts together.
Suppose I wanted to post a certain political opinion. Here are two versions of how I might do it.
Version 1: I think President X is/was a better president than President Y.
Version 2: Only a brainwashed idiot could fail to see that President X is/was a better president than President Y.
(OK, version 2 is not really my style, but hypothetically...)
Anyone would be well within their rights to block me in either case. Blocking, if nothing else, is a way to customize your feed so that you don't see things that detract from your experience here. If you blocked me, I would never conclude that it was because "you couldn't stand to hear the truth and are so pathetic."
If I used version 2, you might block me because of my hateful manner, rather than my political opinion. (There are even users here who I tend to agree with politically, but whose posts I dislike because of the tone.) So if you get blocked, it might not be because of what you said but because of how you said it. And in that case, griping about someone "not being able to stand hearing the truth" is a bit self-serving on your part, IMHO.
As for debating or arguing with what I posted: if I posted Version 1, then I think it is really out of line for you to respond with ad hominem insults toward me. On the other hand, if I posted Version 2, then I should be prepared to take whatever you dish out.
As for down-voting (which I am not planning on using anytime soon), I would reserve it for Version 2. Although we are reassured that the "penalties" for being downvoted are mild ones, I would not want anyone to be penalized simply for expressing views with which I disagree. But it might not bother me so much if the person were penalized for expressing those views (or views with which I do agree) in an adolescent bullying manner.
Just my opinions.
