Which is a good thing. What consequences should there be to having a bad take? Getting your comment pushed down from sorting as well as getting publically ratio’d and verbally lectured in replies by the members of small community you are part of is consequence enough IMO.
I don’t think the bad comment needs to be autoremoved/hidden just cause it has 10 downvotes or whatever that kind of thing encroaches on a censorship slippery slope. Theres a report button and moderators for anything actually against community guidelines.
I’d also say that removing bad takes instead of arguing against them can help further the belief in those bad takes because someone who believes in good faith might but be aware of counter arguments that might make them change their mind.
If only the proponents of ideas are allowed to discuss them in their own spaces, then that’s the only place where people curious about them will be able to find information.
And even if the one arguing the bad take refuses to consider other options, IMO public discussion forums are more about the lurkers reading them than those commenting, even if the latter makes up the entire visible community. Don’t argue for the sake of the one you’re disagreeing with, argue for everyone who thinks they might have made a good point but haven’t decided yet.
This is why I’m glad Lemmy doesn’t have a karma system. Cuts down on this bullshit.
That cuts both ways since there’s also not really any consequences to getting downvotes.
Which is a good thing. What consequences should there be to having a bad take? Getting your comment pushed down from sorting as well as getting publically ratio’d and verbally lectured in replies by the members of small community you are part of is consequence enough IMO.
I don’t think the bad comment needs to be autoremoved/hidden just cause it has 10 downvotes or whatever that kind of thing encroaches on a censorship slippery slope. Theres a report button and moderators for anything actually against community guidelines.
I’d also say that removing bad takes instead of arguing against them can help further the belief in those bad takes because someone who believes in good faith might but be aware of counter arguments that might make them change their mind.
If only the proponents of ideas are allowed to discuss them in their own spaces, then that’s the only place where people curious about them will be able to find information.
And even if the one arguing the bad take refuses to consider other options, IMO public discussion forums are more about the lurkers reading them than those commenting, even if the latter makes up the entire visible community. Don’t argue for the sake of the one you’re disagreeing with, argue for everyone who thinks they might have made a good point but haven’t decided yet.