In this case I'm still not sure if people are downvoting because they don't like the data, don't like me not being convinced about the blood libel parts, think Pizzagate was real or what.
You're getting downvoted because people don't like it, but you're right. People who don't like it don't read about it, and that gives rise to denial and lack of knowledge, like "in the bathrooms of a NY Pizzeria."
If you think it's entirely implausible that there could be organized pedophilia operating out of DC, you're not being honest with yourself. Look at what happened in Norway 4 days ago.
I'm not interested in discussing politics on HN--and I'm not referring solely to this theory--but I am concerned when people are not intellectually curious enough to consider even hear an argument.
So the person that down-voted without explaining why either thinks that there has been a lack of vitriol or thinks that anecdotal evidence in the negative outweighs the plethora of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. We'll never know because this has developed into the usual inevitable flame fest.
No the problem is that he makes accusations that are not backed up by any data and this is contrary to the guidelines.
I consider myself more of a leftist than your typical hn user and when I have been abnormally downvoted I never felt it was because of my opinion but rather because I was too hot headed or too ignorant about what I was talking about.
So I am very concerned by those claims but without any data about presumed tolerance to bigotry stuff, they are of no value too anyone. Anybody could feel sore and angry about how some social online gathering is not as X as he wish he was. Heck, that's my life on Reddit.
Gimme data, gimme sources, I'll vote you up.
Anyone downvoting this instantly correctly doesn't see any value in a post making a lot of allegations without any evidence. The "lol f u" attitude makes it easier to click the down arrow without attempting to engage someone who appears close-minded and lacking an ability to engage in civil discourse.
I'm curious as to why I'm being downvoted. Do people disagree with the reasoning or do they disagree about the actual facts of what happened ? I'm OK if you are down voting because you think this has nothing to do with the point being commented on (although I disagree) however if it isn't I'm curious about the reasons.
the fact it is getting considerable downvotes lends credence to one of the main points of the study. we're seeing that happen in real-time, via downvotes.
the point of the study is that there may be some -- emphasis on some -- evidence in favor of those controversial views, but attempting to air or even attempting a discussion about them leads to immediate backlashes.
GP is making a bigoted argument with supporting data from a serial killer. If I were to downvote because I disagree with their argument, I would have to downvote twice.
Let’s stop discussing voting now, though. I agree with the mods here that it makes for very boring reading.
I am not, but I can downvote things that I think degrade the quality of discussion, which in my personal opinion includes a great many Covid threads. Others of course can submit and upvote stuff they find is interesting. If you have good stuff that challenges the conventional wisdom, please post it, as I actually seek out that kind of material (for example, Alina Chan's Twitter feed, which in my opinion is the best skeptical source on the lab leak theory).
I think I'm getting downvoted because some people don't want to come to grips with the actual argument, and persist in grasping onto their benighted picture of history because it helps them to perpetuate their own modern-day mythology, if you follow?
reply