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. 

[tallslenderguy]

i appreciate the comments and feedback. i think the arrow votes are emotional expression, "emojis."  People who rely on them solely, who use them while avoiding verbal comment or explanation, come off to me as wanting to be offensive without the risk of response.  Sort of a ring and run, or sucker punch.  

Engagement is challenging and risky, vulnerable, especially where there is disagreement.  

[SomewhereonNeptune]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

Engagement is challenging and risky, vulnerable, especially where there is disagreement.  

But it doesn't need to be. Where it goes sideways is when people let emotions dictate rather than facts.  People can generally debate facts but you cannot argue emotions or feelings. 

If you tell me, "I hate you, you suck", that doesn't help me as feedback because it isn't supportable in an argument based on facts. 

[Erik62]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

i appreciate the comments and feedback. i think the arrow votes are emotional expression, "emojis."  People who rely on them solely, who use them while avoiding verbal comment or explanation, come off to me as wanting to be offensive without the risk of response.  Sort of a ring and run, or sucker punch.  

Engagement is challenging and risky, vulnerable, especially where there is disagreement.  

Life becomes even more challenging when we don't talk. Talking helps, most often, to alleviate fears, prejudices, clears misunderstandings. 

[norefusal]

i can only remember doing this once because i was very triggered. 

generally i stick by the rule "don't yuck someone's yum" but some guys seem to use "we like what we like" as a cover-up for bad behavior. 

so... you wanna write fiction about bad behavior, or share rRL experiences from your past, go right ahead. but don't encourage people to do awful, technically illegal things in RL and then get all hurt if someone downvotes it. 

[tallslenderguy]

2 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

But it doesn't need to be. Where it goes sideways is when people let emotions dictate rather than facts.  People can generally debate facts but you cannot argue emotions or feelings. 

If you tell me, "I hate you, you suck", that doesn't help me as feedback because it isn't supportable in an argument based on facts. 

i agree with this and would add that i think emotions are a "fact" of being human.  We often argue over things the reasoning part of our brain perceives as facts,  only to discover later on we were wrong, that the earth really isn't flat. We are finite beings who often make absolute conclusions because it does something to satisfy us emotionally.  

Growing up, i was conditioned by an often subtle cultural notion that "men are rational and women are emotional."  i used to be a corporate executive in a mostly male dominated environment. i watched as, time and again, male business leaders made decisions based in emotion but hidden behind a facade of reason and rationale.  Then in mid life, i became a nurse and now am part of a mostly female dominated environment.  It exposed my own conditioned bias noted above. i found the nurses i worked with to be some of the most rational people i've ever known. i think the challenge is learning how to be self aware, understand and process our feelings. i think a lot of cultures condition males to deny their emotions rather than learn how to understand and process them as part of who and how we are.

Everyone has emotion, it's built in to our brains. If evolutionary theory is correct, our emotional brain was the first part of the brain to evolve, and our senses still funnel all input through the emotional part of our brain before it gets to the reasoning part of our brain.

[SomewhereonNeptune]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

i agree with this and would add that i think emotions are a "fact" of being human.  We often argue over things the reasoning part of our brain perceives as facts,  only to discover later on we were wrong, that the earth really isn't flat. We are finite beings who often make absolute conclusions because it does something to satisfy us emotionally.  

Growing up, i was conditioned by an often subtle cultural notion that "men are rational and women are emotional."  i used to be a corporate executive in a mostly male dominated environment. i watched as, time and again, male business leaders made decisions based in emotion but hidden behind a facade of reason and rationale.  Then in mid life, i became a nurse and now am part of a mostly female dominated environment.  It exposed my own conditioned bias noted above. i found the nurses i worked with to be some of the most rational people i've ever known. i think the challenge is learning how to be self aware, understand and process our feelings. i think a lot of cultures condition males to deny their emotions rather than learn how to understand and process them as part of who and how we are.

Everyone has emotion, it's built in to our brains. If evolutionary theory is correct, our emotional brain was the first part of the brain to evolve, and our senses still funnel all input through the emotional part of our brain before it gets to the reasoning part of our brain.

You make really good points, but here is where I part with your premise. When I say 'emotional', I mean argumentation that is not based on purely factual reasoning. These are the "2 + 2 = 4's" of the world, things that we've proven with evidence. Like we know that base water is composed of 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 Oxygen molecule. Fairly standard information that we've come to know as factual. 

On your corporate culture points, I know it well since I've lived a life in IT project management. I could breakdown the cost-benefits and ROI or NPVs of a project only to get pushback from other executives who had personal agendas ('your project might be the best thing for the organization, but it will mean that my group will be marginalized and put at risk for losing my budget or their jobs, so I'll block you for various reasons, none of which have any basis in fact'.). I've seen it far too many times to mention to the point that I might get angered about something, but rarely get emotional or take it personally. I agree that emotions can run amok over rational, logical, and factual decision-making. The element you might be referring to could be the "gut instinct", which actually has a lot to do with our anatomy and our gut affecting our health. "Trust your gut" does have some relevance.

It may be a sign of high EQ or emotional intelligence to have an ability (innate or learned) to compartmentalize the emotional elements of an action or situation against intellect or fact. None of us want to hear law enforcement making a decision to prosecute us based on 'just a feeling that he/she committed a crime' versus the actual evidence that leads to the conclusion. 

I'll let our friends from Britain opine on the famous stoicism or lack of emotional feeling or want to express any emotions. Just try to get them into therapy. 🤣🤣

[hntnhole]

7 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Engagement is challenging and risky, vulnerable, especially where there is disagreement

Of course.  The fact is, most of us lead busy lives, working, activities, fucking, all important facets of living our lives.  For some of us, so is debate, the entire point of which is to offer ideas, positions on issues, ideas on all manner of subjects, and receive honest, equally well meaning responses.  As other guys above have said, disagreement need not become disagreeable.  It's the discourse that brings many of us back, since there's a carefully-constructed feeling of "community" here on BZ. 

No guy always agrees with everything - that would obviate the entire purpose.  The "response" doo-dads allow us to express a general position re: that post/response, yet move on to other subject matter easily.  I think of them as mini-additions to the conversation, which is why the great majority of guys keep coming back - some weekly, some daily, some less frequently.  Every guy can fit in where he feels is most advantageous.