You must log in or # to comment.
If it’s a civil and interesting discussion, why not?
Exactly. If two people are making competing compelling arguments, they’ve both earned an upvote. Using Up/Down votes as a means to siding with someone is a good way to build an echo chamber.
Up/down votes should be used more as “I think this comment has a positive/negative contribution to the conversation”.
It should, but it absolutely isn’t.
You’re right, and even the Lemmy devs get this wrong in the docs:
You can upvote posts that you like so that more users will see them, or downvote posts so that they are less likely to be seen.
Note that it doesn’t talk about the quality or appropriateness of the comment, just that you can suppress it by downvoting.
Playing devil’s advocate, I completely disagree. If two people are making competing arguments, only the one being needlessly contrarian deserves an upvote. Using Up/Down votes as a means to side with someone is a good way to build a Boeing 747-200 engine.
You sure you don’t mean a 737-MAX? They don’t make the 747 anymore, AFAIK, or is that just the passenger model that ended?
No I don’t think so (upvote).
When I agree with a comment, but the rebuttal is civil, well thought out, and reasonable, I’ll upvote both. I’m more likely to downvote attitudes I don’t like rather than statements.
Typically I value comments based on argumentative strength and/or whether information provided adds value to discussion.
Strong arguments will be upvoted even if I disagree with the overall conclusion. And part of what makes arguments strong is civility and open-mindedness (in my opinion).
This is actually the way you are supposed to do it.
Yep, if it contributes to the discussion (even if you don’t agree) you up vote. If it contributes nothing or derails the discussion, down vote.
I do this
No you don’t
Bitchhh what’s up
the sky
Upvoted both of you
Sometimes a point is well made even if I disagree with it, the conclusion in it or disagree with the path it suggests whilst agreeing with the objectives.
It’s like how in Politics in better times (or less adversarial countries) one might respect a political oponent whilst disagreeing with them.
There’s also a trait in some cultures were people tend to try and poke holes on other people’s ideas and point out the bits they find incorrect, not because they’re against it, in disagreement with it or to put down that other person, but to try and help improve that idea even further - in other words, genuine constructive criticism. A downvote isn’t constructive, and sometimes people deserve an upvote for trying or for how far they got, even if the end result could be better.
One can appreciate a strong argument, even if it goes against what they themselves believe.
Upvotes are supposed to represent that a comment added to the conversation in some way. Just because two individuals disagree doesn’t mean that they didn’t contribute.
For me:
Upvote = worth your time to read
Downvote = not worth your time
Yes
No
Maybe.
Many discussion topics can be complex and are much more than one side or the other, so I’ve found doing this in the sense of replying that I agree on these parts, however…
I almost never even downvote because it’s an active choice to push down someone’s opinion.
Since I blocked Lemmy.ml, I haven’t downvoted anything at all for several weeks, which is surprising especially given the USA election. Lemmy’s userbase really is 1000-fold more enjoyable to interact with than e.g. Reddit.
Overall I only downvote someone acting as a troll, and often even then just ignore it and move on.
I upvote everyone I interact with … positive, negative, agreeable, disagreeable, questionable, correct, incorrect, dumb, intelligent … the only time I downvote is if someone is genuinely advocating violence or death or murder against anyone
Yes.
“Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break it’s own head!”
“He’s right. As the good book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face.”
“Nonsense! You can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world.”
“…He’s right.”
“He’s right, and he’s right, they can’t both be right.”
