Alright, who’s downvoting all comments in this conversation? If you have some objection to this line of discussion, come out and say it; don’t karmassassinate people.
EDIT: Ok, I may have misused “karmassassinate” there. I’m not sure. it’s annoying and unhelpful, whatever you call it.
I reject the idea that there’s something wrong with silent downvotes. (And “karmassassination” typically refers to downvoting a large chunk of a particular user’s posts without reference to their content, not to silent downvoting, nor to downvoting an entire conversational branch based on the branch’s content.)
eg “Metathics isn’t complicated, it just awesomeness”. However “Metaethics is complicated, but you can get an initial toehold on it by considering awesomeness” is OK. That;s just introductory.
Could you taboo “dumbed-down”? Because it appears I have no idea what you’re talking about (or you could be talking gibberish, I suppose.)
Alright, who’s downvoting all comments in this conversation? If you have some objection to this line of discussion, come out and say it; don’t karmassassinate people.
EDIT: Ok, I may have misused “karmassassinate” there. I’m not sure. it’s annoying and unhelpful, whatever you call it.
I reject the idea that there’s something wrong with silent downvotes. (And “karmassassination” typically refers to downvoting a large chunk of a particular user’s posts without reference to their content, not to silent downvoting, nor to downvoting an entire conversational branch based on the branch’s content.)
eg “Metathics isn’t complicated, it just awesomeness”. However “Metaethics is complicated, but you can get an initial toehold on it by considering awesomeness” is OK. That;s just introductory.
I’m aware that you think this is an example. Could you tell me what you mean?
Presenting something that is simplistic (too simple, lossy) as if it were adequate, or even superior to standard versions.
I see. And you claim that overexposure to such material has rendered the average LW member unable to detect oversimplification?
Thats my explanation for the upvoting that puzzled the articles’ author.
Thank you for clarifying.