What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don’t think it’s bad behavior in the first place, or don’t care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here… One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it’s small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do “Top Day” on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don’t like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Either nuance in a topic people are very black and white about or not being able to figure out how people can read things as the opposite of what I wrote.

    Only happened a couple of times, no regrets.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Asking people to see nuance here and the rest of the web is the worst. You’re either left or right. Urban or not. Up or down. There is no in between, partial solutions are useless. Drives me bonkers

        • Lath@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          What’s interesting is that the language allows multiple meanings. The commenter above can either be driven bonkers by presence of nuance or the lack of it and both interpretations are correct.

          The first sentence can be seen as being against nuance or it can be seen as being against the online experience of asking for nuance.
          The next sentences can be seen as arguments against nuance or examples of behaviour encountered when asking for it.
          And the final bonkers can either be against the use of nuance or the repeated responses to it use.

          So without further clarification, we can’t really be sure which stance the commenter implies.
          With only these two situations presented, it’s a 50/50, left or right choice, so I’ll go ahead and presume it’s the latter, since that seems to be more likely encountered in online chats.

          • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            If the commenter meant that a black/white mindset drives them nuts, then I redirect my comment, in the sense that:

            1. I agree, it’s nuts.
            2. My comment applies to people with that mindset.
      • Sabata11792@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you call both sides right/wrong when both sides are right/wrong, both sides downvote you.

        Mention a third option, middle ground, or reasonable compromise is a downvoting.

        Tell them to chill, you might have well stuck a hornets nest up you ass. There’s a reason you occasionally see people just admitting they were wrong or changing their mind get sent to the front page, its just rare.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yep, I still make the misstake from time to yime and try and give a resonable take on a rant post when I feel like they are too unfair.

      Latst time was a few days ago when I responed to a person in a Linux community ranting about how Windows 11 sucks because he didn’t know how to use it properly and that it had the audacity to not include drivers for 20 year old equipment.

      I got massively downvoted and after I explained that I was an IT tech that didn’t run Linux on my main machine, I was weirdly called out and some idiot claimed that you can’t be an IT tech if you are not running Linux as your main computer OS.

      It was kinda funny, I was bashed contiously by the open community for a minor disagreement, while I believe that I stayed polite throughout the conversation

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You can be an IT technician with Windows on your main machine. Whether you should be is a different question.

    • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Oh, hell yeah.

      Anything political or anywhere connected to something that could be culturally attached for some people. Especially when people start comparing one evil to another and try to say one’s worse because we’re used to doing the other and accept it as normal, so we should completely ignore how it’s barbaric as fuck and just address the one topic that’s more politically or culturally unacceptable or convenient to support.

      Hey, how about we acknowledge that they’re both bad, and they can both be equally bad and work on correcting the one culturally accepted one while it’s politically convenient to address the one that we can agree is evil*, too.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      That first one is where I feel I’ve seen myself and others get downvoted more than anything else listed here. Maybe it is recency bias from that one thread the other day lol.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Honestly though in all actuality there are very few topics where nuance does exist like with guns for example: it’s a very nuanced issue and calls for bans without acknowledging the reality that for many in America relying on the justice and police systems is not always a good or even safe option when it comes to personal safety, but at the end of the day you either ban them or you don’t and any extra asterisks are minutiae, so people don’t really care about your personal reasons they just want to know what side you fall on in the conflict.

      So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying “what if we rape but only sometimes?” on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Every topic has nuance.

        Every. Single. Topic.

        There is even nuance when talking about nazis. Like the fact that they rose to power by giving people economic solutions prior to speed running pure evil. That doesn’t anything that they did was good, because the nuance is in how they implemented those economic actions. The small details that made it work so they could rise to power at that point point time in that location.

        Nuance doesn’t mean good or evil, just complexity and more details than most people think about. Sometimes it isn’t super relevant, and can be used to distract from the high level details, but it is still there. Nuance with racial disparity is keeping in mind that a lot of racism is implemented in different ways regionally, while still being racism.

        So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying “what if we rape but only sometimes?” on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.

        That isn’t nuance. That is weaponized compromise.

        The fiddly details about consent and coercion in relation to rape would be about nuance.

    • metaStatic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The older I get the less patience I have for actual morons. if someone wants to put words in my mouth I don’t have to be there for it. I just block and move on.