I’ve edited to cancel my statement “Some people may feel intimidated by such an argument, and this can continue to turn off the post so that it collapsed (hidden).) I just want to make clear to someone of this type to appreciate and not easily turn off the post. I do not understand the lesswrong, whether some people who turn off an article by doing a few times downvoted, will result in an article not visible to all readers. But if downvoted for many times does not make an article to be collapsed, only to certain people, then it’s certainly a very good thing.”
I understand now. On LessWrong it’s about share honestly with the spirit of seeking truth. Thanks.
I’ve edited to cancel my statement “Some people may feel intimidated by such an argument, and this can continue to turn off the post so that it collapsed (hidden).) I just want to make clear to someone of this type to appreciate and not easily turn off the post. I do not understand the lesswrong, whether some people who turn off an article by doing a few times downvoted, will result in an article not visible to all readers. But if downvoted for many times does not make an article to be collapsed, only to certain people, then it’s certainly a very good thing.”
I understand now. On LessWrong it’s about share honestly with the spirit of seeking truth. Thanks.
Re: the voting system:
People who like your post/comment and want more like it can upvote it.
People who dislike it or want less like it can downvote it.
Comments where downvotes = upvotes + 3 are collapsed by default, as are all child comments under them, and people have to choose to see them.
Re: “intimidated”… I’m choosing for now to consider that word-choice an artifact of your being a non-native English speaker.