Negative rep - (split from B Kavanough and MeToo)

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm perfectly ok with negs. There are a lot of sad people out there, who will never get the chance to ride a white stallion to the defence of a damsel in distress. This is the nearest they will ever get, so they should get the chance to gallop to the rescue, deadly mouse in hand. If it makes them feel fine and noble like Sir Galahad, it's fine by me. 

There are also people who would like to reply with a wise and insightful post, but can't think of any words, or are scared that it will just come out stupid, and expose them to ridicule. 
A negative click is safe and anonymous, it's a boon for the less gifted. 

Yes, this is exactly the type of post that might get me to give a neg rep. Thanks for the example.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, this is exactly the type of post that might get me to give a neg rep. Thanks for the example.

From my perspective, I think you would be being over-sensitive to mistermack's post if you were to neg rep him. I think it's barbed with a light sprinkling of sarcasm but it is not what I would call vitriolic.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

From my perspective, I think you would be being over-sensitive to mistermack's post if you were to neg rep him. I think it's barbed with a light sprinkling of sarcasm but it is not what I would call vitriolic.

Agreed that it is not vitriolic. But I get tired of smart ass responses. I don't feel like arguing about why I think something is smart ass, I just prefer to show my exasperation by giving a neg rep and moving on.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Agreed that it is not vitriolic. But I get tired of smart ass responses. I don't feel like arguing about why I think something is smart ass, I just prefer to show my exasperation by giving a neg rep and moving on.

There is also the case when provided references are completely ignored and a position based on no data and/or faulty premises is vigorously defended. This seems just lazy to me and after a few attempts I feel that a negative rep is justified to express displeasure at the colossal (though admittedly self-inflicted) waste of time.  I do have noticed that whenever I get a negative rep usually someone else nullifies it. The notification system makes it a bit more annoying than it used to be, though.

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is also the case when provided references are completely ignored and a position based on no data and/or faulty premises is vigorously defended. This seems just lazy to me and after a few attempts I feel that a negative rep is justified to express displeasure at the colossal (though admittedly self-inflicted) waste of time.

In the science forums, I agree but in the politics section, which is more opinion-based, I give more lattitude. In subjects like politics we use evidence to support our personal view or agenda but that evidence is usually not so unequivocal and can be interpreted with a bit of  confirmation bias thrown in as well. Politics is more street-level and so we have a certain lack of formality; this should be taken into account.

Edited October 15, 2018 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Agreed that it is not vitriolic. But I get tired of smart ass responses. I don't feel like arguing about why I think something is smart ass, I just prefer to show my exasperation by giving a neg rep and moving on.

Why not simply move on? Would you have neg repped a similar post with a position you agreed with? Would you even have considered it a smart ass response if directed at someone you disagree with?

My biggest problem with neg reps is how they are directed at new members, they have no way of knowing why they are getting neg repped, and sometimes there is piling on. Maybe it is their apparent attitude but they see opposing views getting positive reps with essentially the same type of language, or smart ass response.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In the science forums, I agree but in the politics section, which is more opinion-based, I give more lattitude.

Even in the politics forum I do feel that relevant data and studies should be incorporated to the fullest possible extent. The alternative is an utterly belief-based representation of events. In the case of the original thread some of the misgivings in OP were based on the completely different procedure and mechanisms. Of course there is leeway in terms of interpretation of events. E.g. whether folks found either BK or CBF was more believable. However, I will note that only one party was fully accused to be a liar on the event in question with apparently quite a few folks immediately agreeing. That is presumably down to a rather simplicistic black/white attitude on events where apparently it is important to take a full stance with no room for nuance. E.g. it seems inconceivable for some that one can find someone's testimony believable but still be uncertain what actually happened.

 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why not simply move on?

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I'm sure it also has to do with how tired I am, if I'm in a good mood, if this particular person has been doing this repeatedly...

Quote

Would you have neg repped a similar post with a position you agreed with?

I didn't feel there was anything to agree with in mistermack's last post. It was just his opinion of what he thought of the use of the neg rep, pointing out that people who use it are sad & slow, while people like him are insightful and gifted. Now that I think about it I may go back and neg rep it after all.

Quote

Would you even have considered it a smart ass response if directed at someone you disagree with?

Of course. I don't see how anyone might think it is NOT smart ass, regardless of whether or not you held a similar opinion.

[Arete]

Some of the negatives probably came from me. When you immediately dismiss someone coming forward with a claim of sexual assault as a liar, and ridicule/criticize the circumstances of their claim despite them being typical, you perpetuate the toxic environment which effectively silences victims of sexual violence and prevents them from coming forward. The way in which mistermack discussed ford's assault was toxic, and symptomatic of the animosity typically faced by victims of sexual violence coming forward.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I also noted, that in the now closed thread, JC and I got no ( or very few ) negs, for expressing virtually the same ideas as other posters who did get neg reps.
Do JC and I have more 'respect' from other members than relatively new members who did get downvoted, because we've been around longer ?

If you and JC are smart enough to include qualifiers like "in my opinion", "I think", "from my experience", "it appears", and so on I would say that you 2 do deserve more respect. I don't think falsehoods or highly disputable conclusions should be stated as fact. I feel those who do not know the difference between their own opinions and facts should receive down votes. As iNow pointed out we have all received them.