Down vote arrows

[tallslenderguy]

i'm wondering why people use down vote arrows in a discussion forum setting?  i get using upvote arrows, because it's an agreement or approval of what has already been said, but a down arrow with no explanation of why? i can speculate, but that will only be me reflecting myself, i'd rather understand from those who use them.

i'm curious to hear from those who use down votes? Especially using them without including a response or explanation giving their own particular views as to why,  given the opportunity, in a discussion forum?

 

[BootmanLA]

I use them in a few different scenarios. I use them when someone is spouting dangerous misinformation, especially when they're clearly doing it deliberately for attention.

I use them to express disapproval of what someone posted. I subscribe to the old saying "It doesn't take all kinds; there just ARE all kinds." Everyone is free to believe as he wishes, and to post his opinions thereon, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to accept that viewpoint or let it go unchallenged.

And sometimes the person has just repeatedly posted the same bullshit to troll the rest of us, and I'm not always going to engage. But I'm going to express my opinion that it's still bullshit.

[NYBBGUY58]

I don't think I've ever used one. I just "vote with my feet" and move on.

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Especially using them without including a response or explanation

I tend to avoid using downvotes generally, since they're an obvious rejection of the foundational premise of the site; interaction with others.  

That said, there are a couple of contributors that I simply don't read.  Guys who always have nothing but rejection of what others post, constantly throwing stones at other guys contributions, is a time-waster, as I see it. 

So, I simply don't bother to read any of those two guys contributions.  There are plenty of sincere contributors on BZ that aren't so impressed with themselves, and I read, respond to thoughts/replies from all the rest of us.  Frankly, I hope those two return the favor.  

[NWUSHorny]

I use them very sparingly, and believe I have limited them to political discussions where it is very clear that the poster will not give consideration to getting their "facts". 

[NicNorth]

I’ve only used them very rarely.  For an unkind or irrelevant comment or when I disagree strongly.  Mostly I just move on.

[Erik62]

I agree with most responses. Someone saying something so blatant as, "Hitler was a great man", the red arrow (down vote), I really don't think needs any further explanation. 

  Alternatively, if a member says, "Tariffs are good & will make America rich", (sorry Donnie, I'm a plagiarism thief), this DESERVES a red arrow BUT, it needs to be explained to the OP why it has been given with a precis of WHAT TARIFFS ARE & the resultant damag. 

[SomewhereonNeptune]

I do moderation on another site (more locally oriented, not specific to LGBTQ+ topics) and there is a clear set of guidelines that all members are advised to follow in keeping with the site's purpose. It can be easily summarized as this: It's ok to disagree without being disagreeable. I think some folks tend to forget that. I remind people on this other very local site that the person they may be vitriolic toward could live right next door. Something to consider that there is a real human being behind the words.

19 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

And sometimes the person has just repeatedly posted the same bullshit to troll the rest of us, and I'm not always going to engage. But I'm going to express my opinion that it's still bullshit.

In diplomacy, it's not so much what you say but how it's said. There are persuasive ways to make an argument, then there are those that make the poster feel like they've been continually whacked over the head with a baseball bat. I know I'm perhaps the outnumbered minority here, but I believe firmly that both sides should have a voice without being shouted down. That's why I've avoided some of the topics here because there are those on the other side of the discussion that have made BZ less than welcoming to others. 

17 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I tend to avoid using downvotes generally, since they're an obvious rejection of the foundational premise of the site; interaction with others.  

So, I simply don't bother to read any of those two guys contributions.  There are plenty of sincere contributors on BZ that aren't so impressed with themselves, and I read, respond to thoughts/replies from all the rest of us.  Frankly, I hope those two return the favor.  

This. And I've avoided some folks -- and some topic areas -- since they've demonstrated lack of tolerance to any point of view that isn't in total agreement with theirs. I stopped using the red arrow and now just avoid them as being vexations to the soul. I think if there were greater acceptance of differences in views we'd all be a lot better off. And so would BZ. Be happy, life's too short.

18 hours ago, NYBBGUY58 said:

I don't think I've ever used one. I just "vote with my feet" and move on.

I wonder how many people voted with their feet and just walked away as I did years ago. Yes, I'm back but wiser now for who and what to now avoid.