An idea that’s false but “spectacularly well-written” should be downvoted to the extent of its destructiveness.
Well, to the extent of its net destructiveness… that is, the difference between the destructiveness of the idea as it manifests in the specific comment, and the destructiveness of downvoting it.
But with that caveat, sure, I expect that’s true.
That said, the net destructiveness of most of the false ideas I see here is pretty low, so this isn’t a rule that is often relevant to my voting behavior. Other considerations generally swamp it.
That said, I have to admit I did not read this comment all the way through. Were it not a response to me, which I make a habit of not voting on, I would have downvoted it for its incoherent wall-of-text nature.
Well, to the extent of its net destructiveness… that is, the difference between the destructiveness of the idea as it manifests in the specific comment, and the destructiveness of downvoting it.
But with that caveat, sure, I expect that’s true.
That said, the net destructiveness of most of the false ideas I see here is pretty low, so this isn’t a rule that is often relevant to my voting behavior. Other considerations generally swamp it.
That said, I have to admit I did not read this comment all the way through. Were it not a response to me, which I make a habit of not voting on, I would have downvoted it for its incoherent wall-of-text nature.