I downvoted you because you’re wrong. For one, comments can’t be promoted to main, only posts, and for two, plenty of opposition has garnerned a great deal of upvotes, as shown by the numerous links lukeprog provided.
For example, where do you get ‘almost 800 responses’ from? That comment (not post) only has 32 comments below it.
Yes, I was wrong. But my point was correct. The 781 comments applied to the Main Post So:
The topic was popular, like I said.
The post could have been promoted!
But ask yourself, would you have been so harsh on a factual error had you agreed with the message? This is the way bias works, after all, by double standard more than outright discrimination. You could say I should have been more careful. But then, when you’ve learned not to expect a hearing, you’re not so willing to jump the hoops. But it’s your loss, if you’re a rationalist and if you’re losing input because dissenters find it’s not worth their time.
As to LukeProg providing example demonstrating welcoming dissent: you couldn’t have considered my counter-balancing evidence when you downvoted before taking the time even to explore the post to which the cited comment belongs.
To LukeProg: have I made my point about the limits of dissent at LW?
I downvoted you because you’re wrong. For one, comments can’t be promoted to main, only posts, and for two, plenty of opposition has garnerned a great deal of upvotes, as shown by the numerous links lukeprog provided.
For example, where do you get ‘almost 800 responses’ from? That comment (not post) only has 32 comments below it.
Yes, I was wrong. But my point was correct. The 781 comments applied to the Main Post So:
The topic was popular, like I said.
The post could have been promoted!
But ask yourself, would you have been so harsh on a factual error had you agreed with the message? This is the way bias works, after all, by double standard more than outright discrimination. You could say I should have been more careful. But then, when you’ve learned not to expect a hearing, you’re not so willing to jump the hoops. But it’s your loss, if you’re a rationalist and if you’re losing input because dissenters find it’s not worth their time.
As to LukeProg providing example demonstrating welcoming dissent: you couldn’t have considered my counter-balancing evidence when you downvoted before taking the time even to explore the post to which the cited comment belongs.
To LukeProg: have I made my point about the limits of dissent at LW?