Initially downvoted because I disliked your reason, then on reconsideration decided this merely discourages you from disclosing your reason, and does nothing to discourage you from downvoting for that reason, so retracted.
ETA: This comment was added to spread the information encapsulated here, that downvoting reasons-for-downvoting that we disagree with only results in a less transparent system which conveys less information overall, without actually changing anybody’s upvoting or downvoting habits.
Conveying less information is good. Too much “information” is spam. I would rather have unexplained downvotes and fewer wasted comments explaining them.
I approve of downvoting gratuitous crudeness, crude terminology and slang. I do not think that any of these things help make people’s beliefs more reasonable. And I think it is quite plausible that they make people’s beliefs less reasonable, in much the way that some people say that dirt and immorality have a real association.
Well, I don’t know that slang is a problem, but I think it is likely to be one.
This gives me reason to think that using slang is either likely to help people think more rationally, or to cause a slight tendency to think less rationally. Given actually existing correlations, at least those that I perceive, I think the latter more likely than the former.
Singapore is hot, modern, stable, strategically positioned in Asia, economically strong, great for business and English speaking.
However it’s also polluted, absent in rural landscapes, difficult for job seekers and authoritarian.
I’m surprised there isn’t more rationalist circle jerking around Singapore.
Downvoted for gratuitous crudeness.
Initially downvoted because I disliked your reason, then on reconsideration decided this merely discourages you from disclosing your reason, and does nothing to discourage you from downvoting for that reason, so retracted.
ETA: This comment was added to spread the information encapsulated here, that downvoting reasons-for-downvoting that we disagree with only results in a less transparent system which conveys less information overall, without actually changing anybody’s upvoting or downvoting habits.
Conveying less information is good. Too much “information” is spam. I would rather have unexplained downvotes and fewer wasted comments explaining them.
Upvoted for OrphanWilde’s reason, and upvoted OrphanWilde for OrphanWilde’s reason/analysis.
Initially tempted to downvote for gratuitous prudeness and provide negative reinforcement against crude terminology and slang.
Edit: removed upvote. Why should I be upvoting this just because my initial thoughts to downvote were wrong? haha.
I approve of downvoting gratuitous crudeness, crude terminology and slang. I do not think that any of these things help make people’s beliefs more reasonable. And I think it is quite plausible that they make people’s beliefs less reasonable, in much the way that some people say that dirt and immorality have a real association.
Why do you think slang is a problem?
I can see down-voting the comment under discussion because it includes a gratuitous insult, but that’s a slightly different issue.
Well, I don’t know that slang is a problem, but I think it is likely to be one.
This gives me reason to think that using slang is either likely to help people think more rationally, or to cause a slight tendency to think less rationally. Given actually existing correlations, at least those that I perceive, I think the latter more likely than the former.