I logged into Kbin today to see 18 notifications where the same guy banned me from all of their magazines for downvoting them.
I was only subscribed to 1 of those magazines, but it’s still annoying to wake up to 18 ban messages from someone who got easily angered from a downvote.
(Side note: IMO, this is why being able to see downvotes is bad. Even if anyone could see them by spinning up their own instance, that’s a lot of work compared to pressing 2 buttons.)
I’ve blocked the guy, but is there anything that can be done to stop this from proliferating across the site?
Seeing downvotes is not the problem. It is a positive attribute of the platform as it increases transparency and accountability. Do not try to shift the blame off of the person. The person who used the system to do this to you is the problem. It is good that you have a way to track this behavior, but if people start clamouring for closing avenues of transparency, it will lead inevitably to a platform that does not allow you to make these observations.
Ngl this sounds like everyone ever who has defended a terrible thing and instead blamed an individual.
For example: “Guns aren’t the problem, the people with the guns that are the problem.”
You just tried to make and equivalency between “guns” and “transparency and accountability”. Try to realize that.
Your example: “Guns aren’t the problem, the people with the guns are the problem.” “Transparency and Accountability aren’t the problem, the people that abuse it are the problem.”
An arguments construction has nothing to do with it’s parts so even if my argument is constructed in the same way it does not make them the same. Try not to build strawmen with flawed logic.
As an aside here’s a better statement:
Guns are the problem and People are the problem. Transparency and accountability are not the problem.
I don’t think you understand what a strawman is.
Though you spark a good debate. Should the votes in elections be transparent for accountability sake?
A strawman argument is when you pretend a person is another and attack the false persona you proped up. Your statement propped me up as a person who trivializes gun violence. It was a gross overstep by the way.
You don’t know when you are making a strawman argument. Which you verifiably did. Try not to trip on your own statements and maybe take a course on philosophical logic so you can retrace and understand your own words.
@TheShadowKnows
@EnglishMobster @KairuByte an analogy isn’t a strawman. He didn’t say you were trivializing gun violence. He said the defense you used was faulty because it could just as readily be deployed to something more clearly harmful. It doesn’t even prove the thing you are defending is bad, it just demonstrates that your argument defending it is a bad one.
Apart from the fact that I was using it as an example, and explicitly stated such, sure I guess? Of course you also need to ignore the fact that I never claimed you said that, or were arguing that statement.
So, y’know, not at all a strawman. But pop off I suppose.
You going to address my question, or just (ironically) use a strawman argument with some ad hominids sprinkled on top?
So NOW your arguments are hyperbolic “examples” not actual statements or questions.
This is a public forum, but understand I say this directly for you to reflect on personally:
Next time you try to associate another person with gun violence advocacy, even if through implied positionality using the words “like”, maybe, just maybe, your argument was going nowhere.
The second question was as flawed as the first statements you made. It requires no answer.