I hate that I always compare Lemmy to Reddit, but Reddit used to have (not sure if they still do) guidelines called “Reddiquette” that included guidelines about upvoting and downvoting. I don’t remember the specifics (and sending too much of my browser traffic to Reddit makes me feel dirty) but one of the guidelines was not to upvote/downvote on the basis of agreement/disagreement with the content.
On Lemmy, I’m honestly a bit lax about upvoting and downvoting at all. (I’m trying to be better about it.) Buy when I do upvote/downvote, I try to do so on the basis of whether the comment/post “adds to” or “subtracts from” the community or conversation. I can disagree with one comment’s take on some subject but still upvote them if they’ve given me a more nuanced perspective on the issue. If they’re just parrotting well-known talking points and not being thoughtful with their posts, I may downvote them evren if I agree with their ultimate stance.
I’m just mostly wondering how folks on Lemmy think about upvotes/downvotes and what implications that has for the content here.
Conservative like slow to change or conservative in the modern political sense which just means trying to undo any progress on personal rights?
To the guy I replied to, they’re apparently one in the same. But I’m definitely referring to the former. Sometimes it’s nice to have someone telling you to pump the brakes when you’re cruising on an idea ya know?
Liberals (me included) tend to rely on momentum and sometimes we overshoot. The world needs all kinds of people - even if I disagree with most conservative viewpoints.
I tend to avoid calling slow to change conservative because people and parties who self identify as conservative have been promoting regression on social issues, removing rights, xenophobia, racism, and sexism. They spoiled the term!