go on
If a user posts something obviously wrong, or obviously malicious, or obviously subversive, or obviously kikey then I should not need to reply. I should not get harmed in any way for downvoting it. He should not be protected by some retarded rule.
Free Speech and censorship free, while admirable: have no place in a non homogeneous group setting. None. None at all. This is EASILY proven with one simple statement: Your enemies WILL ALWAYS use your speech protections to attack and subvert you. This is not something I should need to prove or show examples of it's so obvious. But reddit is a perfect example. As are twitter, facebook, tumblr, (((ruqqus))) etc.
I'm not sure 's goals here. But they're too blinded by their own positive outlooks. They will be crucified on their misplaced love of free speech. As is happening the world over in once White countries.
But don't downvotes affect the visibility of your content?
Or do the mods only use it to ban people with a large number of downvotes? And that's why they only want you to use it to mark spam? And also that's why there are consequences to users who downvote post that aren't necessarily spam?
But don't downvotes affect the visibility of your content?
Yes. Which i s why it should do no harm to the downvoter for downvoting.
If someone posts something retarded they should not be seen. It's not a difficult concept.
(post is archived)