They are? Where? I mod a Community and I’ve never seen anything that isn’t explicitly for Admins that can see them.

For my community ( !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca ) I would adore this as long as it’s available to Mods of the community the downvotes are in and Admins of that instance only. It should absolutely not be visible for normal users.

We are hit with downvotes nearly every time we post a new thread on anything even remotely controversial so it would really help us filter out people who simply downvote to bury the thread and contribute nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

Heck, we made it a rule to not downvote unless the user is not adding to the discussion, and that it should not be used as a disagree button. People generally ignore this, however.

That or just add the moderator option to disable downvotes for Communities. It would be an incredibly handy toggle.

EDIT: For an example as to why it should be implemented, see this post you’re currently viewing where I give reasons, how it’s been impacting us, some alternatives, and people hit the “fuck you” button with zero discussion and that’s all. This is the problem.

Figured I’d make a new reply in hopes the system notifies of a response.

1. It’d be cool to do an instance, but I don’t have the time (or maybe resources) to manage such a thing. Even getting help to manage one Community is hard. We have had two mods vanish, and I can only imagine running an instance being much harder. Our largest issue is actually getting replies instead of drive-by-downvotes. New threads that aren’t pretty obviously tuned to the attitudes of Lemmy at large get buried quickly in no-discussion downvotes. For example, the thread about overpopulation was insanely downvoted, with very little actual discussion occurring. It was reported to admins, and I was told multiple times that it was a fascist dogwhistle. I have no idea how or why this is, because nobody explained it or responded to questions. I replied with data, and was told in no uncertain terms to fuck off in PMs. People don’t respond because they don’t see the thread due to downvoting, won’t reply if they do see it due to dogpiling, or can’t back up their opinions and stop responding after making insults. This has been my experience of trying to discuss anything of substance on Lemmy. It’s a huge problem. I would absolutely help run a new instance, but I couldn’t spearhead the effort.

2. I like the multiple vote system, but my preference would be to simply disable downvotes altogether and leave it at “upvote only.” I don’t think we’ll ever get through to users that a downvote isn’t a “disagree button” to many people. Disabling downvotes would have to be done instance-side, or so I’ve been told. I don’t think the entire instance wishes to do that however. I’ve requested more Community controls, but there’s been a distinct lack of them at present.

I’m totally open to any ideas to help though!

A trash heap where it fucking belongs.

There isn’t a thing that you can put ketchup on that a good BBQ sauce or hot sauce isn’t better on. I will die on this hill.

Hey! I wish the damn system would notify me when a post is made in the community, so we can start that as a wishlist feature right now. It makes it hard to engage and grow a Community when you don’t even know someone has posted there. When I browse Lemmy, I tend to use All and simply filter out subs I have no interest in. I don’t think many people exclusively visit specific subs.

First off, I appreciate the positivity! You have no idea how many aggro messages I get because I had the gall to even broach subjects that some people don’t like. I’ve had PMs from people telling me they’re going to kill themselves because of threads I’ve responded to where I pointed out logic failures, been called every name under the sun, had the sub reported multiple time because of threads questioning a personal moral narrative the user had, and much more. It gets to be a real drag when you see a reply notification and get a twinge of apprehension because you’re not sure what you’ll get.

I have to head out now (work stuff), unfortunately, but I’ll edit this reply in a few hours with thoughts on your proposals above, I just wanted to make sure I replied ASAP so you can see that there’s some movement.

Yes but one example does not (or should not) a rule make. There’s good statistical analysis and plenty of reason to back up that particular ruling so it’s not simply a belief, but good science on outcomes. So once again using your example, we have science and logic versus belief that the science is immoral.

In other cases like the facetious example I gave in my previous post, if it is valid to make a rule from nothing but belief, then it is just as valid to repeal that rule because of nothing but belief.

I am absolutely pro-choice by the way, but simply pointing out the flaw in the logic of the other poster.

I’ve reported hundreds of these stupid things because I use guides somewhat regularly. I think they’ve deleted like four? They do notify you when they take action, but it’s incredibly uncommon.

So… it isn’t ALWAYS a fallacy. In its purest, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:

“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”

The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A, such as in the following examples:

• “The US should put the Ten Commandments into schools. If they don’t, then everyone will be worshipping Satan within a few generations."
• “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they ban one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be banning all books!”

In these examples, the conclusion does not follow deductively from the premise. Nor is any reason given to believe that a chain of events set in motion by the act described in the premise will inevitably lead to what’s described in the conclusion. Heck, the above examples are not even good inductive logic.

So you’re absolutely correct in saying that not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacies, it just takes logic in between, and that’s something a lot of people struggle with.

I don’t have much to add that I didn’t write elsewhere, but thank you in particular for your response. Thoughtful and thorough is always awesome to see! I hadn’t considered the shift away from life skills to money-making skills, but you’re quite correct.

I do use discussion and debate as linked terms, yes, but they aren’t the same. I’d like to see more of both.

Debate like how you’re used to seeing “Debate Teams” engage in? To me it’s as useless as most online commentary. They’re bending rules to steamroll or Gish Gallop opposition. It’s not interesting or enlightening and there’s a distinct lack of substance.

Real debate with (as you mentioned) citations, respect, a point, and actual experts? Love it. At my college there was a debate between two professors who had differing opinions about research in their field and it was awesome.

But there CAN be value in internet discussion. Moreover, I feel there SHOULD be value. I’ve experienced it many times in the past and even somewhat recently in this community. When it happens and you get someone who thinks differently than yourself, and who treats you like a real person instead of “the opposition,” it’s absolutely wonderful.

Yep, it is a leading question. I added an apology to the initial topic because our threads are not normally leading in any way as I save my opinion for response posts below generally.

It was done because of the way that I’m currently feeling with a lot of experience on my side. If you don’t think discussion has gotten worse, you’re more than welcome to post why you feel that way. I’d be interested to see what you have to say.

Maybe. It’s pretty rare, and on Reddit or Lemmy, it’s been very much in the minority. Maybe 1 out of every 100 lead to something worthwhile. It actually makes me really miss a good forum.

The reason this pissed me off in particular is that I’ve been running communities since I was 16 years old starting with a forum of an article-based site that I was the head writer (and main editor for contributors) for.

Some of those issues are persistent in Lemmy to this day and are things I tried to add rules against in the sidebar. Things like:

• Calling someone dumb for bringing forth a logical opinion. No discussion, no “here’s where things fall apart” or “here’s why that isn’t applicable to the situation”, simply “lol fuck u, ur dum.” Or as with modern social media, a drive-by downvote. Most often in the forum days, this would come from someone who you’d recognize as being very opinionated, but not intelligent or self-aware enough to articulate why they felt a certain way. We’ve got tons of threads on this community where bad logic is called out, then the person downvotes and doesn’t comment further. My feeling is that this is because they don’t want to be wrong, so they don’t engage. They internalize the idea that their opponent must just be stupid, and walk away.
• You can be right for the wrong reasons, and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.
• Your morals are not an argument. You can use how you arrived at those morals, but not the morals themselves. Your morals are not logic and apply only to your outlook.
• It’s okay to be wrong. It’s downright awesome to become smarter due to someone correcting you or providing newer / more accurate information. You shouldn’t argue from a position of “I’m right, let me convince you.” Instead we should approach things from “This is how I arrived at this position. Are you able to articulate why I’m incorrect in believing this?”

Things at present remind me of my high school days and that “shut up nerd” culture that the jocks were stereotyped to have. Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. Everyone thinks their position is the most defensible. Everyone feels they are better than their out group.

Looks like what I’d want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.

Yes. Which I agree with and feeds into what I said.

If someone is passing (or is perceived to be passing) a moral judgement because of what they feel is right, and someone else doesn’t feel they deserve that scorn, there’s no doubt that those judged react negatively. This is true no matter the sides involved.

The examples I gave don’t disregard this in any way. Are you able to articulate why they might?

Also, speaking as a mod, we don’t downvote people we disagree with here, only people who don’t add to the discussion or who go on the attack.

I don’t know if I agree with that for either the vegans or woke folk.

Let me try to explain - if you are verbally harassed by religious folk of a religion that you don’t believe in who have an issue with something you don’t see as a problem (say you mixed fibres in a sweater like a real heathen), who is at fault? You for upsetting them, or them for having an issue that you do not?

What if they just keep bothering you and saying how morally reprehensible you are every chance they get? If you’re like most people (including people who aren’t vegan or claim to be non-woke), you’d say “Don’t put your moral judgments on me.” I feel that very much applies in all of those situations.

It’s the same reason most non-religious people don’t like people protesting abortion clinics. A personal belief and some indignation does not mean the world should change to suit someone’s sensibilities.

I am as confused as you are by this comment section. She’s also given statements that are anti-genocide as well. You can be opposed to multiple shitty things.

It’s not a complete retirement package by any means but it is a way for them to get some of the value out that they put in. We definitely encourage them to diversify their portfolios.

Huh! I had no idea this was a thing. Thanks for bringing it up!

The Wide Awakes were a youth organization and later a paramilitary organization cultivated by the Republican Party during the 1860 presidential election in the United States. Using popular social events, an ethos of competitive fraternity, and even promotional comic books, the organization introduced many to political participation and proclaimed itself as the newfound voice of younger voters. The structured militant Wide Awakes appealed to a generation which had been profoundly shaken by the partisan instability in the 1850s, and offered young northerners a much-needed political identity.