I do try to explain downvotes when requested, so here we go:
I'm downvoting you for trotting out the tired old "anyone
who disagrees with me is an enemy of free speech" silliness.
I think you misread me.
I never said, nor implicated nor thought that disagreeing is incompatible with free speech; quite the opposite.
I was talking about people abusing downvoting to express disagreement or feeling insulted.
Maybe you should read more carefully before presuming others wrote something silly.
I'm curious what you think downvotes should legitimately
be used for, if not to criticize patently ridiculous statements
(like "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect,
if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL").
I have no finished list of things which downvotes should be used for.
However, trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion are part of that list.
Patently ridiculous statements can be downvoted, but I suggest to error on the side of doubt when judging whether it's patently or not. Also, if the statement in question was serious, a comment why it's ridiculous is appropriate.
Disagreement is definitely not part of that list. Because it blocks controversial discussion even when they are serious and rational.
As a side note, are you implying that Redditors don't downvote
when they disagree or feel insulted? Because wow. Have you been to Reddit?
I think you misunderstood again.
On reddit exactly what you described happens all the time, and HN should be different in this point.
I never said, nor implicated nor thought that disagreeing is incompatible with free speech; quite the opposite.
I was talking about people abusing downvoting to express disagreement or feeling insulted.
Maybe you should read more carefully before presuming others wrote something silly.
I have no finished list of things which downvotes should be used for.However, trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion are part of that list.
Patently ridiculous statements can be downvoted, but I suggest to error on the side of doubt when judging whether it's patently or not. Also, if the statement in question was serious, a comment why it's ridiculous is appropriate.
Disagreement is definitely not part of that list. Because it blocks controversial discussion even when they are serious and rational.
I think you misunderstood again.On reddit exactly what you described happens all the time, and HN should be different in this point.