0
4

[–] usernameistaken 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I think we need voaters to submit their reason everytime they try to downvoat. that way, it will satisfy their need to downvoat and also provide a reason for the OS (original submitter) to understand why it was downvoated.

while it is not ideal, until we can separate the ways to report unrelated replies and disagreement, it will atleast provide an avenue for a dialog.

or maybe change the importance of CCP.

0
2

[–] OllieQueen [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Perhaps a "disagree" button. instead of only downvoats

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] OllieQueen [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

it's not that exactly. Just a lack of working together that bugs me.

0
2

[–] Girthcontrol 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There's a lot of residual anger over the policies enacted by Reddit management, their doublespeak and hypocrisy as well as the blatant censorship. I'm sorry your little community was disturbed by the influx of angry people, hopefully the frustration and anger will be focused constructively but for now I think feelings of helplessness and betrayal are still a bit raw.

0
3

[–] 1866818? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I definitely feel where you are coming from, though I disagree it's anything new. It's the same reason we have fan boys/girls of cars (Ford vs Holden or whatever), console wars (Sega vs Nintendo etc.), religious debates (Christians vs Muslims vs Atheists etc), and even sports teams (Australian State Of Origin Rugby League, Super Bowl, etc). When in reality, you can appreciate the good parts in everything if you look. There is good and bad in everything but there is this instinctual nature to take a side and revel in the conflict. Typically men especially enjoy competition and male culture thrives in these types of environments.

You can see evidence of these themes anywhere you go, from 4chan, voat, sub-reddits, hobby forums, community groups like martial arts classes, university courses, rural towns, etc. The conflict arises most in forums that intersect and have larger populations, from urban cities, news website comment sections, youtube comments, rivalling cultures or religeons, etc. It's human nature.

The constructive feedback versus vicious criticism is another form of the joy found in conflict. In my personal opinion it is a lesser form of conflict compared to the examples given above but it exists none the less (I'd compare it anecdotally to sarcasm versus a witty joke). It also naturally thrives online via anonymous boards because it's a far easier and risk free venture to get your fix, express some emotion, and then log off for the day. There are numerous aspects to the drivers behind engaging in such activities, some enjoy the turmoil, some enjoy intellectual debate, some enjoy learning, and some are using it as an outlet to express various emotions they don't otherwise know how to handle.

The key to an enjoyable time is to either dabble in a bit of everything or find a sub-community which shares your ideal version of conflict, where the rules of engagement are known or at least there is an unspoken agreement of what it is. Where communities often fall apart is when there is an influx of people who share different rules of engagement. This is why smaller communities are often known to be better - because the people within these communities develop an understanding of each other easier which fosters a tribal like culture they come to appreciate. Hence why smaller communities can often become defensive towards new comers who stray from the normality already established. Without shared values, it becomes harder to communicate, harder to forgive minor transgressions, harder to accept people for who they are.

It is generally encouraged to branch out and experience other cultures / value systems as this tempers the instinctual hostility one can have towards someone from a different tribe. This is why wiser people encourage you to travel to other towns, states, countries, and cultures. Because isolating yourself and increasing your hostility towards other cultures is poisonous, closed minded, and dangerous philosophy. It fosters distrust, paranoia, and makes it easier to dehumanise other people.

This is also why generally speaking censorship is a dangerous thing. It promotes the negative aspects of being in unity and of one mind. Those who fear others based on different views or culture are often indoctrinated in this way of thinking. It can be scary when you start to identify these types of people or even cultures in the world because it is too easily led into committing human atrocities in the name of what is "right". People and the movements they can represent who shout down legitimate constructive feedback and don't actively contribute to community are some of the biggest threats we face today in modern society. The ones who shout only criticism or even simply downvoat something they don't like are the drop in the ocean which along with many others, cause the waves which erode away the heart and soul of humanity.

0
3

[–] cajunsunrise 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I think it happens because people are, well, less thoughtful.

I saw a post on FPH today (there was a FPH post that was in the to 5 most viewed posts on Voat today, so I checked it out even though I've blocked the subverse) that was a comic of stick figures about how a group of girls agreed with this one girl who wouldn't date a dude because he was shorter than her, but when a guy said to a girl that he wouldn't date her because she was fat, the girls were mad at him. The comic meant to show a double standard of objectification and how if one is acceptable, then both cases should be. But its premises, I think, were wrong. Just because one of those cases is socially acceptable, sortof, doesn't mean that it should be, or that it should make the case for FPH stronger. To me, it means they're both wrong. (I'm dating a dude that's shorter than me, so y'all can fuck off if you think I'm begin a hypocrite)

However, I can't say that on FPH, because the subverse would specifically BAN me from sympathizing with any "Fatty". So, it becomes a bit of a self-perpetuating circle, where hate happens, and it can't be intellectually discussed because you would get banned (ie: censored? oh wait...isn't that supposed to be something Voat is against?), and so more hate happens.

I don't really know how to stop the cycle when users will get banned for trying.

This idea can be extrapolated to other scenarios where users are condemned as SJW. Instead of actually disagreeing with SJW arguments in logical ways, being calleda SJW and downvoated is enough. And so the discussion stops and so does the flow of logic and ideas.

Anyways, probably an unpopular opinion, but there's my two cents.

0
1

[–] OllieQueen [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Good job for vocalizing it, man or woman!

0
3

[–] 1866342? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So shines a good deed in a weary world. You want the real answer? Hate and evil has already won. Humanity is doomed. People are picking up on this subconsciously, or they've experienced some reality altering negativity that they will never escape. They want to destroy, and they have every reason to. Seeing beautiful, rich people live such effortless and carefree, easy lives makes anyone not directly in that position inexorably bitter. And those with the power to help, those in positions of authority or posterity are so quick to push others away in defense of their fragile and valuable asset, and cling to it mercilessly whether they're tyrants or saints. This is the fatal flaw of humanity. The paltry pecking order. Greed and selfishness lorded over anyone who dares question their divinity. Humanity truly at its most repugnant.

0
1

[–] OllieQueen [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That was dark, but beautifully written.

0
0

[–] dart200 ago 

Evil can't win. It will only lead to it's own destruction.

0
3

[–] crackers1097 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It is hard to plant a seed in such a thick forest, and even harder to have it grow.

A man would rather cut a tree down for wood as opposed to plant one.

0
1

[–] OllieQueen [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Wow. That is poignant. Sad, and true.

0
3

[–] crackers1097 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You need not worry. Thick pine forests are merely another stage in the cycle. When disaster comes and the forest is burnt, Birch trees take their place. New ideas and shades, a new ecosystem. Creation begins. And, when the birch withers and ages, the Pine may come again.

0
2

[–] 300mphPeppermintWind 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I find that people who are bent on destruction have the intent to change things so that they can lay claim to whatever new comes of it. Though I do find the idea of destruction some times interesting. When something is destroyed, there is the chance to rebuild, better, stronger. Where as if it's never destroyed, the status quo may remain and the idea of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" may cause stagnation.

Remember This? Most people agree it was destroyed, but yet the person who attempted to restore it though that they where rebuilding. So this is a good example of destruction based on perception.

Gotta say OP, this is a pretty fascinating topic.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] OllieQueen [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Fun story. I'm a female, and have been accused of being sexist against other females. The reasoning:

In my job, we have to stock a lot. Which means lifting 40lbs of shit. Now our job requirements say you need to lift a minimum of 30 lbs -- not that much. Easy shit. Now my boss hires a girl, who can't lift more than 15. No medical issues, but she was hired as a stocker. I'm supervising her. I no longer put her ont he schedule and give my boys more hours. She accuses me of being sexist.

And I'm just like "No honey. I'm not sexist. You just suck" except more eloquently.

load more comments ▼ (29 remaining)