In the past 3 days I’ve been downvoted for commenting that gay people can adopt babies (in 196 for that matter) and asking why a news article about a bridge seemed to have one photo with a concrete floor and one with a wood floor. I commented asking why I was getting downvoted and someone told me it’s because I said it’s two different bridges (which I most certainly didn’t say) and someone else was sarcastic and rude
People on Lemmy are proving to get more toxic as time goes on. I’m considering going back to reddit more and more. Sure, the place is horrible, but I don’t feel bad about myself when I feel brave enough to comment
Edit: Can somebody who’s downvoting me please tell me what I said that was wrong? I really just want to know
I just read your two comments. I mean this as constructive and helpful. Sorry if it comes off as rude.
On the bridge you start interrogating about the incorrect answer to your first question. It’s quite presumptuous. I wouldn’t have downvoted. But it also doesn’t seem like a big deal.
On your gay adoption comment, I get what you were saying. It came off really pedantic. But also, the implication is hilarious that the way to make men “manly” is to have them raised by gay men.
I didn’t mean to be presumptive or interrogative. I meant to just include a second part if (and only if) it was relevant. I see now how it can easily come across that way
Would you be able to further explain the implication you mentioned? I don’t understand how you got there. I don’t mean to say you’re wrong or anything. I just don’t get the connection
No worries. I don’t mind being told that I’m wrong. And the implication I mentioned is purely just my own observation.
The post to me sounded like they were calling out their sister who thinks men are being raised to be too feminine. It’s a common accusation that younger people are “raised by women” without enough masculine role models. It’s all Alpha-Beta theory BS.
The commenter you replied to was saying that applies to every son.
Your comment seemed to inadvertently offer a solution that the Alpha-Beta types would NOT be happy with, gay parents. No “mothering” required.
To be clear, I don’t think the implication was why you were downvoted. I think you just sounded a bit pedantic. Like you were correcting them without adding to the conversation.
I just happened to enjoy the pendantry.
By the way, I’ve also been in a position where I was downvoted with zero explanation, even after asking for it. So I get the frustration. Even a bad explanation is preferred to no explanation. So I hope that helps and you continue to contribute however you feel comfortable.
Malicious downvoting is rampant here. People are a bit more silo’d on reddit which leads to less noise and more positivity when a user sticks to their chosen subs. I get the feeling that people here stick to the All or Local feeds which leads to a lot of negativity.
This makes a lot of sense. I do indeed stick to all on lemmy and the ignorant downvoting that often happens, reminds me of what would happen in default reddit subs like worldnews. My opt in reddit subs indeed had a way better crowd. The frontpage of Lemmy didn’t used to be this way when I first joined though.
Yeah, I’m guilty of it myself. It is a behavorial spiral that I have to jog myself out of. I kinda like the local feed because it feels manageable but I’ve also blocked hundreds of communities at this point.
In the past 3 days I’ve been downvoted for commenting that gay people can adopt babies (in 196 for that matter)
I was curious so I went looking in your post history for an innocent and clear comment communicating “that gay people can adopt babies”. I found your comment, and immediately understood why you were downvoted for it. Here it is in context:
The OP was this:
and your comment was below one response to the OP:
I don’t know if English is your second language, or if you’re not used to drawing meaning from poetry rather than fact from prose. The person you replied to was giving a poetic answer. Keep in mind, I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any of the opinions listed above, simply that I can grasp the ideas and concepts the people were communicating in what they wrote:
When that poster said poetically “Every man is the son of a woman” they were communicating the idea that every man, that grows up to be an “undesirable adult” (as reflected by the OPs post) was once, at least for a fraction of a second, under the care of a woman (as in: thats how biology works). Further, the vast majority of those that would be men were under the care of women for many years, and if they grew to be “undesirable”, then previous generations of women had a hand in raising them that way and are therefore at least partially responsible for them being “undesirable”. Again, I’m not lending my voice in agreement or disagreement, I’m simply translating what they were saying poetically into an easier to understand block of text for you. It is up to you to form your own opinion.
What you responded with was appearing to contradict the poster as though they wrote prose. You focused exclusively on the idea that a tiny fraction of men are raised by a set of same sex parents ignoring the fact that the vast men aren’t raised in that situation. Further your “yes and no” seemed to suggest it could be as high as 50/50 split, which is of course, far far from reality.
Your downvotes were earned by you with people essentially saying:
If you need another example to highly what you did. Imagine the original post was Shakespeare’s like from Romeo and Juliet:
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.”
And you responded with:
“Shakespeare was probably referring to Old Garden Roses (Rosaceae Gallicas) and it does have a unique fragrance”
You might be kind of factually correct, but Shakespeare was writing poetically, not referring to a specific plant, but that the properties of the thing apply to it irrespective of whatever name we attach to it. Nobody cares what the genus and species of rose Shakespeare was referring to because the meaning of the idea he was communicating was separate from that.
Yeah. I went back to Reddit myself a bit over a month ago. Rarely come here anymore. It’s become a far left echo chamber for kids that barely know how the real world operates, and are far too stubborn to listen to anyone that tries to explain it to them.
deleted by creator
I’m sorry. I need to vent
In the past 3 days I’ve been downvoted for commenting that gay people can adopt babies (in 196 for that matter) and asking why a news article about a bridge seemed to have one photo with a concrete floor and one with a wood floor. I commented asking why I was getting downvoted and someone told me it’s because I said it’s two different bridges (which I most certainly didn’t say) and someone else was sarcastic and rude
People on Lemmy are proving to get more toxic as time goes on. I’m considering going back to reddit more and more. Sure, the place is horrible, but I don’t feel bad about myself when I feel brave enough to comment
Edit: Can somebody who’s downvoting me please tell me what I said that was wrong? I really just want to know
I just read your two comments. I mean this as constructive and helpful. Sorry if it comes off as rude.
On the bridge you start interrogating about the incorrect answer to your first question. It’s quite presumptuous. I wouldn’t have downvoted. But it also doesn’t seem like a big deal.
On your gay adoption comment, I get what you were saying. It came off really pedantic. But also, the implication is hilarious that the way to make men “manly” is to have them raised by gay men.
That really does help. Thank you
I didn’t mean to be presumptive or interrogative. I meant to just include a second part if (and only if) it was relevant. I see now how it can easily come across that way
Would you be able to further explain the implication you mentioned? I don’t understand how you got there. I don’t mean to say you’re wrong or anything. I just don’t get the connection
No worries. I don’t mind being told that I’m wrong. And the implication I mentioned is purely just my own observation.
The post to me sounded like they were calling out their sister who thinks men are being raised to be too feminine. It’s a common accusation that younger people are “raised by women” without enough masculine role models. It’s all Alpha-Beta theory BS.
The commenter you replied to was saying that applies to every son.
Your comment seemed to inadvertently offer a solution that the Alpha-Beta types would NOT be happy with, gay parents. No “mothering” required.
Thank you again. I’m not sure I would have ever made that connection if not for you
I think lurking is probably best for me
To be clear, I don’t think the implication was why you were downvoted. I think you just sounded a bit pedantic. Like you were correcting them without adding to the conversation.
I just happened to enjoy the pendantry.
By the way, I’ve also been in a position where I was downvoted with zero explanation, even after asking for it. So I get the frustration. Even a bad explanation is preferred to no explanation. So I hope that helps and you continue to contribute however you feel comfortable.
Malicious downvoting is rampant here. People are a bit more silo’d on reddit which leads to less noise and more positivity when a user sticks to their chosen subs. I get the feeling that people here stick to the All or Local feeds which leads to a lot of negativity.
This makes a lot of sense. I do indeed stick to all on lemmy and the ignorant downvoting that often happens, reminds me of what would happen in default reddit subs like worldnews. My opt in reddit subs indeed had a way better crowd. The frontpage of Lemmy didn’t used to be this way when I first joined though.
Yeah, I’m guilty of it myself. It is a behavorial spiral that I have to jog myself out of. I kinda like the local feed because it feels manageable but I’ve also blocked hundreds of communities at this point.
I was curious so I went looking in your post history for an innocent and clear comment communicating “that gay people can adopt babies”. I found your comment, and immediately understood why you were downvoted for it. Here it is in context:
The OP was this:
and your comment was below one response to the OP:
I don’t know if English is your second language, or if you’re not used to drawing meaning from poetry rather than fact from prose. The person you replied to was giving a poetic answer. Keep in mind, I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any of the opinions listed above, simply that I can grasp the ideas and concepts the people were communicating in what they wrote:
When that poster said poetically “Every man is the son of a woman” they were communicating the idea that every man, that grows up to be an “undesirable adult” (as reflected by the OPs post) was once, at least for a fraction of a second, under the care of a woman (as in: thats how biology works). Further, the vast majority of those that would be men were under the care of women for many years, and if they grew to be “undesirable”, then previous generations of women had a hand in raising them that way and are therefore at least partially responsible for them being “undesirable”. Again, I’m not lending my voice in agreement or disagreement, I’m simply translating what they were saying poetically into an easier to understand block of text for you. It is up to you to form your own opinion.
What you responded with was appearing to contradict the poster as though they wrote prose. You focused exclusively on the idea that a tiny fraction of men are raised by a set of same sex parents ignoring the fact that the vast men aren’t raised in that situation. Further your “yes and no” seemed to suggest it could be as high as 50/50 split, which is of course, far far from reality.
Your downvotes were earned by you with people essentially saying:
If you need another example to highly what you did. Imagine the original post was Shakespeare’s like from Romeo and Juliet:
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.”
And you responded with:
“Shakespeare was probably referring to Old Garden Roses (Rosaceae Gallicas) and it does have a unique fragrance”
You might be kind of factually correct, but Shakespeare was writing poetically, not referring to a specific plant, but that the properties of the thing apply to it irrespective of whatever name we attach to it. Nobody cares what the genus and species of rose Shakespeare was referring to because the meaning of the idea he was communicating was separate from that.
deleted by creator
Folks could gain a lot from blocking communities with which they only participate by downvote.
deleted by creator
I do not think it is different.
Yeah. I went back to Reddit myself a bit over a month ago. Rarely come here anymore. It’s become a far left echo chamber for kids that barely know how the real world operates, and are far too stubborn to listen to anyone that tries to explain it to them.
The majority of lemmy is grade school/high school aged kids. Don’t expect reasonable responses to anything here and you’ll do just fine.
Is it? Ive only ever heard people claim the age skews much older, 30s at least.
I’m not sure anyone can ever know- but I base my evaluation on the immaturity and ignorance that so prevalent here.
Removed by mod
Thank you. I feel a lot better knowing it’s just morons like you downvoting me. To be honest, I had no idea a stereotype like you actually existed
I feel so bad for you that I actually feel better about myself!