Negative rep - (split from B Kavanough and MeToo)

[StringJunky]

To the neggers: Can we stop with this indiscriminate negging just because he doesn't agree with you? It's not like he's being an arsehole.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

To the neggers: Can we stop with this indiscriminate negging just because he doesn't agree with you? It's not like he's being an arsehole.

In stating that the investigation was a "delay" they are essentially claiming Ford was a Democrat shill. Demoguaging sexual assualt victims is beyond an innocent difference in opinion. It is an unsubstantiated claim which is hurtful to victims of sexual assualt. 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In stating that the investigation was a "delay" they are essentially claiming Ford was a Democrat shill. Demoguaging sexual assualt victims is beyond an innocent difference in opinion. It is an unsubstantiated claim which is hurtful to victims of sexual assualt. 

But that's their opinion. We shouldn't 'shout down' peoples legitimate opinions with negatives; better to express it with a written response.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In stating that the investigation was a "delay" they are essentially claiming Ford was a Democrat shill. Demoguaging sexual assualt victims is beyond an innocent difference in opinion. It is an unsubstantiated claim which is hurtful to victims of sexual assualt. 

While that's not outside the realm of possibilities, arguably a plausibility, it is not "essentially" doing that. If he is getting neg reps for understanding the difference, where you don't, there is something wrong with that.

Edited October 9, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

But that's their opinion. We shouldn't 'shout down' peoples legitimate opinions with negatives; better to express it with a written response.

If I posted something sexist, racist, homophobic, or etc I would get down votes. If mistermack could express their view without blatant victim blaming I suspect they would receive down votes. Their position is not massively different than that of MigL's and J.C.'s who are not receiving down votes. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If I posted something sexist, racist, homophobic, or etc I would get down votes. If mistermack could express their view without blatant victim blaming I suspect they would receive down votes. Their position is not massively different than that of MigL's and J.C.'s who are not receiving down votes. 

I think mistermack is just a bit more blunt but he''s not saying anything that hasn't been suggested earlier. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

While that's not outside the realm of possibilities, arguably a plausibility, it is not "essentially" doing that. If he is getting neg reps for understanding the difference, where you don't, there is something wrong with that.

And of Ford isn't a shill it is reprehensible to imply she is.

[Silvestru]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think mistermack is just a bit more blunt but he''s not saying anything that hasn't been suggested earlier. 

True, I am following this thread with interest and re-checked mistermack and NicholaiRen's posts just out of curiosity.
Mistermack got more than 30 negative reps for expressing his opinion. No matter what that is, I don't think that's cool.

I don't really care about rep points when I get 1-2 negs in a thread, I will still continue the discussion. But over 30? (In all honestly I also gave one at the beginning for a more abrasive comment but things took a rational turn after.)

Can we save negs for people breaking the forum rules or who are actually doing something bad?

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

And of Ford isn't a shill it is reprehensible to imply she is.

Even though you are more than likely right we don't have definitive proof.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Silvestru said:

True, I am following this thread with interest and re-checked mistermack and NicholaiRen's posts just out of curiosity.
Mistermack got more than 30 negative reps for expressing his opinion. No matter what that is, I don't think that's cool.

I don't really care about rep points when I get 1-2 negs in a thread, I will still continue the discussion. But over 30? (In all honestly I also gave one at the beginning for a more abrasive comment but things took a rational turn after.)

Can we save negs for people breaking the forum rules or who are actually doing something bad?

This is my thought. 

[Silvestru]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If I posted something sexist, racist, homophobic, or etc I would get down votes. If mistermack could express their view without blatant victim blaming I suspect they would receive down votes. Their position is not massively different than that of MigL's and J.C.'s who are not receiving down votes. 

Again, probably right but you are blatant "potential victim" defending so even though you might be right mistermack is not Kavanough. Let him express his opinion otherwise you will discuss with frightful sheep who will all agree with you.

Just now, StringJunky said:

This is my thought. 

Sorry, I meant to express that I agree with you. It sounded accusing towards you, apologies.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Again, probably right but you are blatant "potential victim" defending so even though you might be right mistermack is not Kavanough. Let him express his opinion otherwise you will discuss with frightful sheep who will all agree with you.

Sorry, I meant to express that I agree with you. It sounded accusing towards you, apologies.

I meant that I concur.  Damned ambiguous language.

Edited October 9, 2018 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

And of Ford isn't a shill it is reprehensible to imply she is.

It was your words, not his, and clearly chosen due to their negative connotations.

Much worse has been said on here about Kavanaugh, but I don't see the neg reps piling up.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Even though you are more than likely right we don't have definitive proof.

Which is why it shouldn't be stated as fact that the whole situation was a Democratic strategy. 

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It was your words, not his, and clearly chosen due to their negative connotations.

Much worse has been said on here about Kavanaugh, but I don't see the neg reps piling up.

The negative comments about Kavanaugh I have seen surround his testimony. Things he misrepresented to the Senate. 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I have split this off because there a few things to discuss that have nothing to do with the content of the other thread. I would have preferred that another mod do it, because I had been involved in that thread, but it's been >24 hours and no other uninvolved mods have been available

Be very clear on one thing: we are not going to be discussing the topic of that thread here.

 

23 hours ago, Silvestru said:

 Can we save negs for people breaking the forum rules or who are actually doing something bad?

This is item 1.

That's not what the reputation system is for, that's what the "report post" link is for. If you think someone has violated the rules, you let the mods handle it. It's clear from the many discussions we've had about the reputation system that different people use it in different ways, and there are no clear-cut rules on how to use the system, so if you want to do that, I can't tell you it's wrong. But I can tell you the proper protocol is (also) reporting the post. If your only response to a rules violation is a downvote, then I can say you're doing it wrong.

 

On 10/9/2018 at 9:32 AM, StringJunky said:

To the neggers: Can we stop with this indiscriminate negging just because he doesn't agree with you? It's not like he's being an arsehole.

This is the second thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but my downvotes don't come for simple disagreement. And I think it would be a mistake to pass this off as the reason, because then it allows you to ignore what's actually going on.

 

23 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But that's their opinion. We shouldn't 'shout down' peoples legitimate opinions with negatives; better to express it with a written response.

And this is why. Because it's not so simple as a difference of opinion. Much of what is being discussed is not opinion, but of facts, and these are very much not the same. Problems occur when people assert their opinion as fact, or dismiss fact as opinion. And I will downvote people who are doing that, if I wish.

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

This is the second thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but my downvotes don't come for simple disagreement. And I think it would be a mistake to pass this off as the reason, because then it allows you to ignore what's actually going on.

OK. But I just think, in this case, it's better to articulate rather than just reflexively hit the button. I could have chucked out a shed load of reds in that thread.

Edited October 10, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Just now, StringJunky said:

OK. But I just think, in this case, it's better to articulate rather just reflexively hit the button. 

I would prefer that. But I can also think of reasons why someone might not want to participate in certain threads, but still want to register their feelings about some posts. e.g. if someone shows up and posts some sexist or racist or otherwise questionable remark, I might not wish to engage them, but still register my displeasure at their post. (now, I have other tools at my disposal to deal with some actions, so I wouldn't bother with a downvote if a rules violation were occurring, and I were in a position to act as a moderator. But that isn't always the case.)

[Strange]

23 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But that's their opinion. We shouldn't 'shout down' peoples legitimate opinions with negatives; better to express it with a written response.

It depends what those negative opinions are, surely. Does hate speech not deserve a negative vote? And that is not a “for example” - I haven’t read much of the thread, but some of mistermack’s comments are grossly offensive and can only be categorised as hate speech. The only reason I can see for people disagreeing with that is because they are not aware of the regular and systemic abuse that women receive, and so think it is OK because it is “just an opinion”. Would it be “just an opinion” if someone said a particular racial or ethnic group were lazy/stupid/criminal?

I am slightly surprised he hasn’t been censured (or even banned) and that the thread is still open. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

It depends what those negative opinions are, surely. Does hate speech not deserve a negative vote? And that is not a “for example” - I haven’t read much of the thread, but some of mistermack’s comments are grossly offensive and can only be categorised as hate speech. The only reason I can see for people disagreeing with that is because they are not aware of the regular and systemic abuse that women receive, and so think it is OK because it is “just an opinion”. Would it be “just an opinion” if someone said a particular racial or ethnic group were lazy/stupid/criminal?

I am slightly surprised he hasn’t been censured (or even banned) and that the thread is still open. 

Maybe I'm not 'with it' but I think he is airing his unfiltered view in his own way. I would call it ''sharp' rather than offensive... but maybe that's just me. 

 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I would prefer that. But I can also think of reasons why someone might not want to participate in certain threads, but still want to register their feelings about some posts. e.g. if someone shows up and posts some sexist or racist or otherwise questionable remark, I might not wish to engage them, but still register my displeasure at their post. (now, I have other tools at my disposal to deal with some actions, so I wouldn't bother with a downvote if a rules violation were occurring, and I were in a position to act as a moderator. But that isn't always the case.)

Yes, it's true that there will be outsiders looking in and passing judgement; I've not really taken that into account. I do think though, by and large, we are keeping it around the bounds of civility...just. Some peoples views might be seen as offensive but I'm seeing them as having a different but sincerely held view. Because it diverges so much from the 'popular' view (of women) it's seen as "offensive".

[Phi for All]

I agree with Strange about mistermack in that thread. His victim-blaming was indecent, imo, which is different than being uncivil. And I agree with Swansont, often a downvote is the only response (do I really think mistermack would understand my definition of decent?). 

I don't downvote due to a difference in opinion, but I do when (in my opinion) the opinion espoused is reprehensible. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Maybe I'm not 'with it' but I think he is airing his unfiltered view in his own way. I would call it ''sharp' rather than offensive... but maybe that's just me. 

This view seems pervasive. Many Republican senators used to call Trump "offensive" until they found they agreed with part of what he was saying, then he became merely "sharp", telling it like it is in his own way. I'll admit I despaired quite a bit when you seemed to support mistermack (and by extension, his odious arguments), in much the same way (at least it seemed so to me). 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Maybe I'm not 'with it' but I think he is airing his unfiltered view in his own way. I would call it ''sharp' rather than offensive... but maybe that's just me. 

There's "unfiltered view" that is opinion, and "unfiltered view" that is not. Opinion, though, is something that is subjective and personal. If it's objective, it's not opinion. If it's not personal, it's not opinion.

There's a line in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Butch is complaining about "jungle work":

"Kid, I got a right to my opinion, and in my opinion, there are snakes in the jungle."

But he can't have an opinion about that. Whether or not there are snakes in the jungle is an objective fact. Whether any of those snakes is actually venomous is an objective fact. That he doesn't like snakes is an opinion. It's about him, and his likes or dislikes.

Quote

Yes, it's true that there will be outsiders looking in and passing judgement; I've not really taken that into account. I do think though, by and large, we are keeping it around the bounds of civility...just. Some peoples views might be seen as offensive but I'm seeing them as having a different but sincerely held view. Because it diverges so much from the 'popular' view (of women) it's seen as "offensive".

There are some pretty offensive views that are sincerely held. You could sincerely believe that group X is better than group Y, and people might use/have used that belief to behave toward them in certain ways. One might take offense to that.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I agree with Strange about mistermack in that thread. His victim-blaming was indecent, imo, which is different than being uncivil. And I agree with Swansont, often a downvote is the only response (do I really think mistermack would understand my definition of decent?). 

I don't downvote due to a difference in opinion, but I do when (in my opinion) the opinion espoused is reprehensible. 

This view seems pervasive. Many Republican senators used to call Trump "offensive" until they found they agreed with part of what he was saying, then he became merely "sharp", telling it like it is in his own way. I'll admit I despaired quite a bit when you seemed to support mistermack (and by extension, his odious arguments), in much the same way (at least it seemed so to me). 

I don't lean that way as far as he does but I'm obviously more tolerant of his position in that discussion. Within the context of that particular thread, I find myself looking at the subject in an emotionally disaffected way, as I think JCM and MigL are too. Other times, I am committed in a discussion, along with the emotional side effects, but not this time.

I'll have to ponder on Swansont's post for a bit.

Edited October 10, 2018 by StringJunky

[mistermack]

On 10/10/2018 at 4:59 PM, Phi for All said:

I agree with Strange about mistermack in that thread. His victim-blaming was indecent, imo, which is different than being uncivil.

So that's it then. With a wave of your hand, it's decided. She's a victim. Meaning that he's guilty. 
Two people have opposite versions of an event, and you decide that he's lying and she's not. 
At least when I said what I thought, I made it plain that an opinion is all it was, and gave reasons. And I stated god knows how many times that only the two involved can actually know. But to you, a woman who makes a complaint is a victim. 
Case decided!

In the real world, there are two possibilities. Either she's a victim of a sexual assault. Or HE'S a victim of a serious false allegation. But no, you establish that SHE'S the victim with a hand wave.

If it goes to court, one side will argue that she was the victim. The other will argue that she wasn't. Obviously a case of "indecent victim blaming" .

For a person who regularly warns posters for hand waving, you're remarkably ready to do the same yourself.
 

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So that's it then. With a wave of your hand, it's decided. She's a victim.

You're so 'last week'. She's a survivor now.  

Edited October 15, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So that's it then. With a wave of your hand, it's decided. She's a victim. Meaning that he's guilty. 
Two people have opposite versions of an event, and you decide that he's lying and she's not. 
At least when I said what I thought, I made it plain that an opinion is all it was, and gave reasons. And I stated god knows how many times that only the two involved can actually know. But to you, a woman who makes a complaint is a victim. 
Case decided!

In the real world, there are two possibilities. Either she's a victim of a sexual assault. Or HE'S a victim of a serious false allegation. But no, you establish that SHE'S the victim with a hand wave.

If it goes to court, one side will argue that she was the victim. The other will argue that she wasn't. Obviously a case of "indecent victim blaming" .

For a person who regularly warns posters for hand waving, you're remarkably ready to do the same yourself.
 

But "victim blaming" is based on the blamer assuming that the person was a victim. It's not a decision from the wave of a hand, it's a conclusion based on a premise that was already provided, even if it's provisional.

miscasting someone else's position is another thing one might give negative reputation for, which is not opinion.

 

[MigL]

While I have no problems with positive reps, as they are essentially a 'pat on the back' for a job well done, I do have a problem with negative reps.

While someone's post says may offend your sensibilities, or even be verging on hate speech, you don't have the right ( on this forum ) to attack the poster. The rule is 'attack the idea, not the poster'.
Negative reps attack the poster, as they carry that negative reputation forward, they say nothing regarding the idea.
You are essentially saying "you are a bad person for posting this". What's next, calling them names ?

The only way around this would be to assign the negative point to that particular offending post, but not to the poster's reputation.