RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Indeed sometimes the steem ocean does feel like a toxic place. I am fairly used to getting the 10% downvotes which do take 0% away from the value of the post. But yesterday things did change. I did get a 100% downvote from a so called curator account, taking away 20% of the value of my post. I do think that when placing a downvote, the downvoter should be forced to add an explanation for the downvote. Only this measure would decrease the number of downvotes by a lot.
While receiving a downvote is bad enough, it is just worse when you don't know why you have been downvoted.
!trdo
!BEER
Cheers,
Peter
0
0
0.000
Congratulations @fullcoverbetting, you successfuly trended the post shared by @bengy!
@bengy will receive 0.07946100 TRDO & @fullcoverbetting will get 0.05297400 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
Yes, the little ones are annoying but mean nothing... I've picked up more than a few of the large ones now....
It is weird that the best way to try and convince someone is by downvoting... no discussion no terms... lucky we don't conduct ourselves like this off the internet!
Here's one of my recent efforts to speak reasonably on the subject of abusive downvotes,
https://steemit.com/steemit/@logiczombie/q5cex8
Abusive Downvotes? Sorry but those were some of the best cases for downvoting:
slanderous tripe post characterizing the community as a Cesspool of Pedophiles and other such low level scum.
You on the other hand think that it's a misunderstanding, that the poster didn't deserve do be instanuked and seem deluded into thinking that removing the word pedo from a flurry of equally inflammatory insults changes any fucking thing.
O yeah, A+ for effort.
If you believe that all ad hominem attacks should be downvoted, I can actually agree with you on that.
However, the "problem" here is that only SOME ad hominem attacks seem to be WORTHY of downvoting and that "standard" seems to be HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE AND SELF-SERVING.
Those aren't ad hominems. An ad hominem is not simply an insult, it's initial position is one that revolves around something OTHER than the other person and their character, motives, beliefs, but it falsely tries to suggest or indicate that it's about the other person, what their intent is, etc..
So when the issue at hand doesn't exist and the only position is that Person A is such and such, it's simply a matter of slander/libel, an insult, a Personal Attack and that is not protected speech or Free anywhere, it's called Defamation. There's certainly no problem of "only certain ad hominems attacks get downvoted" or that downvoting was disproportionate, the problem is that Defamation is regarded as a common logical fallacy.
From your own quote,
So If I suggest that you're holding a particular viewpoint because you're paid by an interested party, that's an ad hominem attack.
If I suggest that your viewpoint is invalid (wholesale) because you're a moron, or some other derogatory term (like child molester), that's an ad hominem attack.
It really doesn't matter if the ad hominem attack is "true" or not. It's still an ad hominem attack if it's aimed at the person or their character or their motives (the mind reader fallacy is another common example) instead of at the LOGICAL STRUCTURE or COHERENCE of their argument.
An ad hominem attack is often in service of a rush-to-disqualify a debate partner.
Defamation and slander and libel are synonymous with ad hominem attack.
Indeed yet when there's no position and it's simply an insult it's not an ad hominem. Not all insults are ad hominems and not all ad hominems are insults, but all ad hominens must have a position or argument that it tries to undermine by changing of position/argument. Without any position to defer from it's simply a Personal Attack.
I am confused!
I needed to look it up.
ad hominem
adj. Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
adj. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
n. To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.
how can you insult someone when it is not about wanting to change a persons way of seeing something? ether the person you are insulting or other onlookers.
Is it one of my blind spots or one of yours? I am not sure yet.
For example, if someone says "your favorite president is an idiot", it's an attempt to discredit and or disqualify anything and everything they say (and strongly implies that you're also an idiot for choosing such a buffoon as your favorite president, the guilt-by-association fallacy).
It isn't specifically aimed at undermining a particular "argument" or "position" they might espouse, it is a general dismissal of EVERYTHING they've done and or might do in the future.
Saying, "your favorite president is an idiot" is an ad hominem attack (both a direct and indirect attack).
It's also a broad-brush fallacy.
It's also a bald-assertion.
It's also an appeal-to-ignorance.
(1) Please provide an example of an ad hominem attack that is NOT an insult.
(2) Please provide an example of an insult that is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Equally an Ad hominem that isn't an insult when it is True
Wiki
Citation please.
Truth has no quality of Disrespect or Respect, which is what insults hinge on. If an ad hominem is True then it cannot be an insult, it can only be an observation.
So, if someone says, "I think you're a lying dog-faced pony-soldier", that's NOT an ad hominem attack in your opinion because it's "TRUE" (that person is presumably sincere)??
The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).
The other key problem here is that motives are QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).
And you seem to be glossing-over the point that even your source specifies "in SOme instances" (probably when the question tautologically involves questions of "character" and or "motive", of course under those conditions "character" and or "motive" would necessarily be relevant). HOWever, "character" and "motive" are both beyond our epistemological limits (un-quantifiable, self-reported, implicit, subconscious).
And your bald assertion that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it's "true" is not supported by any of your quoted sources.
Why is that a problem?
Baloney
What 'attack'? It's a god damn Ad Hominem, a type of Argument, and not necessarily a type of Flawed or False Argument. Ergo, it's not Fallacious if it is true, as the last quote explains.
The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE
Because there is no way to QUANTIFY "character".
And without QUANTIFICATION there is no way to verify a claim's "TRUTH-VALUE".
Your quote "explains" no such thing.
It simply asserts that in SOME cases, presumably if the subject at hand is specifically about a person's history and or personal choices, data relevant to such an inquiry CANNOT be considered off-limits.
HOweVer, I can't imagine a case where a person's history and or personal choices would be a subject of scrutiny wholly divorced from any explicit or implicit attack or endorsement of their abilities and or ideas WHOLESALE.
A "positive" ad hominem is just as fallacious as a "negative" ad hominem.
You shouldn't believe someone just because they're a doctor.
You shouldn't disbelieve someone just because they're a commie.
It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.
It's not about Positive or Negative or such value statements, it's about Correct or Incorrect reasoning, True or False argumentation.
I agree, claims should be examined by themselves but if the creed of the Doctor is to always obfuscate or lie/deceive then it would be difficult not to believe them, the same creed-o would dismiss the commie if that were the case.
Well that's encouraging.
The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.
And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.
Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.
It's not about their logic holding consistency, internally or otherwise, but about their Ability to characterize certain things that their very character will undoubtedly taint or cast doubt on. That's what I think you're being obtuse about, you think that it's a matter of pure Logic or Reasoning, but it's a matter of Precision, Accuracy, and above all else a matter of Ability to Judge Correctly, not just to judge Logically.
Nonsense. I don't need to "know" their character. I only need to Judge them based on what I know about them, however limited that may be, I don't need to know Everything to surmise their character, it might be more accurate but it can be done accurately without considering everything.
I admire your faith in sample-bias.
Please teach me to "Judge Correctly" without logic.
It is a nice effort on your part to try and bring calm...
However, I do agree with the downvoting in this case... perhaps not so much on the continued downvoting... but I wasn't there and I don't understand the whole situation and history.
If name-calling is a downvotable offense, then there's basically no guiding principle.
Which is fine, I guess, if that's the consensus (simply add it to the list of rules).
Just don't try to pretend that there's a difference between "name-calling" and "libel".
And some sort of warning would seem to be in order before stomping a newb down to (0) rep.
the little ones are growing accounts by the day ... 1000 x 15sp is 15.000 ... etcetera, no one seems to care since 'they mean nothing' but most of them share the same witnessvotes ...
check :
https://steemit.com/steemleo/@rudyardcatling/trollhunter20200203-202002030600485261
that's a collection that gets picked from downvotes on just two accounts ... every time there's more heh
corona only has a 3 to 4% mortality rate, globally thats nothing ... this place has gone to hell completely with HF21 and instead of trying some creative solution and stop the hyperinflation they simply disperse the value down to their clients (i have never known someone who expects me to sell the product im buying from them in order for me to make something of it b/c cases like that tend to be labelled pyramidschemes etc.etc ...
etecetera, lol i came by to see my !sbi status but its gone ... savage threw in the towel ?
heh, probably because of the steemit spirit of collaboration then
your opinion weighs as much as your wallet : if 500 people say yes and one guy with 10k SP says no then its no
the only solution is to BUY more and the only defense is to HAVE more ... nothing here is right anymore lol
but its been a protection racket from the start, if you didnt suck up to the mighty steemcleaners you would never get anywhere anyway and even the biggest success story you get here
is someone who no one has ever heard of if you move outside the little puddle of this 6k posts a day network
...not that im trying to be negative
i just dont like to be false-positive
it used to be
but after a little more than three years i just keep hearing the same .. steem-engine is the most centralized dex on the planet (say they were to quit, what happens to the tokens?)
i could go on for a while but its actually what im trying to avoid lol : reacting to the steem(sh)it :D
my best guess is now they killed the bots (the bots, for which someone who's name we shant mention had written (and sold ... for good money) AALLLL the software ... (and i think is now actively praising apocalypse 21 ... or was in the propaganda-weeks before it) ... so they push tokens , on the centralized DEX ... happens to be the main investor the other one up there who has a finger in everything that actually makes something ... now tokens give merits (some do)
so they attack SBI, one of the longest running projects (i have one account that's been totally zeroed out, rep and all by some anti-sbi cunt) and next up ?
next up : tokens are evil if they get you something, you just need to buy them and dont ask questions (in the words of ojou-sama-the-advocate) and certainly not expect them to give you some profit
L M A O ...
dude bengy, mate ... i know you're too intelligent to believe any of that
Wooof... I'm struggling to follow your comment here... there are things that I guess I agree with... but there is so much that I'm really out of the loop on. Most of the time, I just stick my head down and out of the STEEM commentary... and just write because I like writing. So, I'm afraid I am not really following completely everything that you wrote!
you wouldn't be the first :p ... i just recently picked up the habit of trying to interact a little once a week , and looks like im already a day late ... whatever it was, im guessing it was before Justin Sun came in so its probably completely irrelevant until we see the next development hahah ... maybe this place can be salvaged
I'm completely agree with you, @fullcoverbetting . The same I say, because something like that happened to me yesterday. It feels as if they want to sabotage your work and progress just because of the fact you post different than them, and that's horrible by experience :(
!ENGAGE 5
@aristak you have received
5 ENGAGEfrom @fullcoverbetting!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
I imagine that a lot of the forced "explanations" would be a spicy repertoire of singular but choice four letter words.