Im not dismissing all your responses, just the previous one. You’re getting worked up over nothing.
You are making more assertions as time goes on. You don’t get to just declare that I’m “obviously trying to wear you down” or that you “have pointed out in every response that I’m contradicting myself” or that “unwilling or unable to acknowledge my reasoning is flawed”, (which also presupposes my reasoning is flawed, something in don’t agree with you on).
You don’t get to just declare you’re right about all this stuff, you have not demonstrated your claims. I’m more than happy to concede the failures of my epistemology, there’s no shame in it, I’m just not convinced that you are right (except that I was under the impression edited posts weren’t known, whoops!).
I agree with your first consideration, but not your second. This isn’t about the individual (though I do care that they’re respected), this is about the community as a whole. It goes beyond one persons feelings. A self policing community sometimes works great to keep away bigots, but I believe when that’s the job of moderators, it creates hostile environments, whether obvious or subconscious.
I don’t believe I’m better than anyone else, after all, I wasted long enough entertaining this conversation, as you pointed out, I stooped to rolling in the mud with you.
Fuck yea cant, raw dawg those comments ya raw dawg, shit cant, dawg cant
(BTW this is not hostile, this is just how us Aussies talk to each other, it’s a sign of endearment)
This is very unproductive. Your comments started out well but this comment is laden with strawmen.
I’m saying that people who edit their posts to specifify that they have only edited grammatical mistakes stems from a perception that others may be skeptical about whether they have edited their post to trick people about what they originally wrote, is paranoid behaviour.
The intuitive emotion I was referring to was the feeling of rejection from the community for having a different opinion.
Difference being one is percieved, the other is evidently real, as I can see every time I reply to you.
I never stated that it is directly causing their emotional response (though in some small cases it is), but I did say it was a contributing factor on a greater scale.
Again, I’m not dictating anything, I’m merely trying to explain the correlation between community input and community output. There are communities on reddit where you can see both in full swing. Positive communities foster positive communities.
It is your assertion that my reasoning is contradictory, yet, I feel no cognitive dissonance and have no difficulty clarrifying my position.
You can choose how long we argue for, you can say goodbye whenever you want, but I’m always free to reply.
I got nothing more to say, you hit the nail on the head.
It reminds me of grading movies. If someone says to me its an 8/10, that is useless information. If they tell me it has some action, I’m intruged. Then they tell me it’s a Marvel movie, and I lose all interest.
However, I will say that it was entertaining as fuck to see /u/spez’s comment karma tank - but he’s not really a member of the reddit community, just the warden hearing the prisoners shout “fuck you!” before starting a riot and a partial breakout.
The differences between these two things are people are people are either doing it to themselves, or others in the community are responsible.
All I was saying in the OP is that people don’t need to clarify that they edited for typos because there’s no way for people to know you edited your post.
It’s all well and good to say “these people need help”, they surely do, but the point I’m making is that there is also something we can do, if not for them, for the community generally.
In any case, this is not a petition to dictate anything, it’s an appeal to be better to each other, because downvoting everyone who has a different opinion contributes to a bitter community. How much it contributes is speculative, but the value cannot be less than 1.
As I just replied to another user, paraphrasing this: downvotes might be perceived as the community self-policing, but if you visit r/vegan you’ll see how that can make a community hostile. I’m a vegan and I can’t fucking stand that place. If you have an alternative opinion, prepare to wind up on the top of controversial, where the mob has a field day.
I think some sub’s had the right idea by limiting the lower voting karma to 0. Another downside is it essentially paints a target for the community before an individual has formed an opinion. It generate the hive mind we should be avoiding.
You said its more of an issue for the individual than the community, how much more?
I see this as a shared responsibility. The main reason is I’m convinced there’s not much people can do about the issue of validation.
I see the validation as a double edged sword. Lots of people do legitimately need validation from strangers online, and I’m glad they have communities to go to, to feel better about themselves.
On the other side of it, is it can form into unhealthy comparison. It’s the reason Instagram stopped showing the number of likes a few years back.
I think some reddit communities had a good idea for limiting the karma counter to 0, because negative karma definitely contributes to how people feel about themselves and the community.
I understand many people see it as self-policing, but if you ever visit r/vegan, you will see an extremely gatekeepy community which breeds toxicity. People who step in any direction are taking a step over the line, and it forces compliance via mob instead of allowing mods to handle bad actors.
I agree the context is important, and the examples of rewriting large paragraphs justify clarification, both for new people and returning.
But the original point I made was that you don’t need to post “edit: typo” here on Lemmy. We don’t have edited post/comment tags, so nobody would know if it’s just typos
It’s really not that big of a deal anyway, I was just thinking of redundant examples of Rediquete to drum up the conversation.
I get it as a cultural thing, but it makes no sense epistemologically.
An unethical person would not state they changed their comment, and a malicious person would state their edit was mundane. Those two factors alone render the practice of proving your innocence in advance moot.
I think it’s sad that people reflexively assume the worst. I used to engage in some heated debates on Reddit, but I was never accused of, or assumed the other person edited their posts to make me look bad. It seems like paranoid behaviour to me.
Strangely enough, if it became the norm to correct typos without stating it, the default assumption would be that the edit was a typo correction.
I don’t know how anyone is supposed to rationalise an intuitive emotion to themselves, let alone to other people. So saying people should just stop taking numbers so seriously is comparable to telling someone they should stop being shy.
Negative people will be negative for sure, but it really doesn’t take much for an irrational person to become upset. Evidently, you’re a rational person. It is often the case that rational people don’t intuit irrationally minded people (curse of knowledge bias).
The conspiratorial mindset comment was not directed at anyone here. My point was that people feel that they need to prove their innocence in advance of by explaining why there’s an asterix next to their comment. This is an extremely paranoid behaviour. I was being fallacious by saying it was a conspiratorial mindset, forgive me for being flamboyant.
As far as defending my opinion and shoving it down peoples throat, I don’t think that’s a charitable interpretation. I simply haven’t been persusuaded, and I think its fine to explain why I don’t see it that way.
On a similar note, if people should stop taking numbers so seriously, shouldn’t they also stop taking seriously the implications of a stranger who assumes people are editing mundane comments maliciously?
I think you might be underestimating how personal these numbers can be to some people. I’m glad they don’t impact you, but many people, especially the upcoming generation, equate these numbers with their value.
Big numbers can make people feel validated, that their opinions are valued, or they’re funny.
Negative numbers may result in disappointment or feelings of rejection.
I don’t think negative people are “just negative”. Toxicity pervades cultures which allow it to spread. Down voting is sometimes enough to act as a nucleation point. I’ve seen heated arguments start over accusations of down voting, which isn’t isolated to their thread.
It’s fun to debate, but I think it’s important to focus on the details. It’s not as fun when the other person uses inflammatory language because they assume malicious intent.
As I mentioned in the OP and in multiple replies here, I want to cultivate a community of civil discourse too. As you mentioned, this place need not remind me of reddit, but it was nostalgic in a morbid way.