Autonomy/boundaries is an important value. Hence even actual help that makes everything substantially better can be unwanted. (In this particular case there is already a similar existing feature, it’s more ambiguous.)
everyone who downvoted you is personally responsible for this site having gotten worse
So even in the less convenient possible world where this is clearly true, such unwanting is a part of what matters, its expression lets it be heard. It can sometimes be better for things to be worse. Value is path-dependent, it’s not just about the outcome.
It’s not my own position in this case, but it’s a sensible position even in this case. And taking up the spot of the top comment might be going too far. Minor costs add up but get ignored as a result of sacredness norms, such as linking downvoting to clearly personally making things worse.
The point is distinction between the value of the greater good and the means of achieving it. Values about spacetime rather than values about some future that forgets the past leading to it. Applicability of this general point to this incident is dubious, but the general point seems valid (and relevant to reasoning behind condemnation of individual instances of downvoting in such cases).
Autonomy/boundaries is an important value. Hence even actual help that makes everything substantially better can be unwanted. (In this particular case there is already a similar existing feature, it’s more ambiguous.)
So even in the less convenient possible world where this is clearly true, such unwanting is a part of what matters, its expression lets it be heard. It can sometimes be better for things to be worse. Value is path-dependent, it’s not just about the outcome.
It’s not my own position in this case, but it’s a sensible position even in this case. And taking up the spot of the top comment might be going too far. Minor costs add up but get ignored as a result of sacredness norms, such as linking downvoting to clearly personally making things worse.
“It can sometimes be better for things to be worse.”
I will just leave that there with no further comment.
The point is distinction between the value of the greater good and the means of achieving it. Values about spacetime rather than values about some future that forgets the past leading to it. Applicability of this general point to this incident is dubious, but the general point seems valid (and relevant to reasoning behind condemnation of individual instances of downvoting in such cases).