If it ends up voted positive, why are we even having this conversation? Are we gonna make a big post whenever someone downvotes something that most people like? This is even worse than people who get downvoted and then complain about persecution or make a big fuss about it.
The community norm isn’t about the quality of posts, it’s about whether it’s fine to downvote things.
The community norm isn’t about the quality of posts, it’s about whether it’s fine to downvote things.
Sorry for the lack of clarity- I was referring to norms regarding disagreement and honesty. I interpreted Wedrifid as saying that jgweissman had violated them, given these passages:
What this post seems to be doing is trying to place yourself outside [the category of our allies]
[T]he misrepresentation (or perhaps ‘spin’) in the earlier part of that paragraph qualif[ies] as disingenuous.
All I see here is a bunch of cheap “Yay altruism” applause, some moralizing and a demand that users ignore details and quality of an actual post because they have some kind of external status that you wish to affiliate with.
If it ends up voted positive, why are we even having this conversation? Are we gonna make a big post whenever someone downvotes something that most people like? This is even worse than people who get downvoted and then complain about persecution or make a big fuss about it.
The community norm isn’t about the quality of posts, it’s about whether it’s fine to downvote things.
Sorry for the lack of clarity- I was referring to norms regarding disagreement and honesty. I interpreted Wedrifid as saying that jgweissman had violated them, given these passages: