I don’t think I could live on a 10" screen anymore, but back in the day it was a dream machine.

Interesting. Years ago I moved from an 18in desktop setup to something like your eeePC. Unexpectedly, I also found it fine. These days I have a 14in and it feels unnecessarily big and heavy.

If you’re happy doing things one window at a time (i.e. monocle view, or basically as on mobile OSs), turns out the floor’s the limit!

Well, for my troubles I went back thru the thread to try to understand what it is exactly that’s bothering you. Seems maybe it’s a misunderstanding about my response to remon (“You’re not debating anything by simply repeatedly denying their view and restating” - you). That particular comment was not intended to argue anything, it was my mockery of remon’s condescending shtick (“But downvoting doesn’t mean that. At all. Not even sure how you got that idea.” etc - perhaps read it aloud to hear the drippingly patronizing tone, as if to a child who couldn’t possibly have a different idea of what exactly downvoting means - a question which is, after all, is a bit of a philosophical conundrum). That triggered me into disrespectful sarcasm - which, if you look, you will find I almost never do, I’m generally very civil.

I did get their substantive points (about algorithms, tweakable knobs etc, I know all the arguments by heart) but fundamentally I still believe that a blanket downvote button is analogous to slapping someone down or confiscating their mic - which are things people don’t do in person, they’re simply too rude (or coarse, as you put it). In person we have manners. I wish we did virtually too.

Yes yes, I take the point about the sorting-algo choices and karma absence and so on. I acknowledged it in another comment.

My fundamental point (which you are ignoring) concerns the motivations and incentives for downvoting. My contention is that downvoting thoughtful and well-expressed opinions is always (always) toxic and unhealthy. Others don’t see it that way. So be it.

I’m getting downvotes because people don’t like being told they’re behaving obnoxiously. That’s all. I didn’t downvote you or anyone else. I respect all of your opinions.

And I’d say this is your convenient retrofitting of an optimistic rational theory onto what is in fact almost always much simpler and more brutish: “I had a negative response to this because it contradicts my beliefs and gave me cognitive dissonance”, regardless of its objective merits. You must know this. Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree.

Also, if you don’t want to be part of the discussion, you are free to stay out. other people are participating and enjoying themselves.

In future then I’ll try to remember your handy advice and not say anything that might challenge anyone’s views or otherwise spoil your enjoyment. Cheers.

This seems to be a reply to another comment.

Yeah. Sometimes I can’t resist. Sorry.

Since karma isn’t tracked, I don’t think it’s a real big deal having a negative score comment.

I agree this is an important counter-argument. My other points stand.

That’s interesting. But I don’t know how you can be sure of that. My own theory (not exactly original) is that text communication - without voices, without faces - encourages people to be worse versions of themselves. When there’s ambiguity, the temptation for many is to see bad faith. It takes effort and self-discipline to overcome that, and most (or many) people just don’t have that.

But downvoting doesn’t mean that.

It doesn’t?

At all.

Really? At all?

Not even sure how you got that idea.

Hmm. You mean you don’t have perfect insight into other people’s minds? Admittedly that’s odd.

So yeah, you’re not making any sense here.

And you’re coming across as the kind of sanctimonious interlocutor that I can’t be bothered to answer properly.

I’m not contradicting myself. You are not reading the question asked.

This particular alternative history is uninteresting because its premises mean you have to invent a whole parallel universe. In plain English: it could not have happened and would not have happened, for essentially economic reasons.

The interesting alternative histories are ones that turn on a single fortuitous event.

PS: I am saying that OP’s question is boring because it is unanswerable. It just invites a hundred other questions. If you want to ask THOSE questions, then ask them.

Fair enough about literal religious nuts people of firmly held religious convictions. This side of the pond there are very few of those, fortunately. My basic point is that plenty of people who vote “wrong” (Trump, for example) would actually agree with you on most of your vision of the good society. The questions are mainly over how to get there. This IMO is the tragedy of democratic politics today, and specifically the USA. An almost absolute breakdown in communication.

This exactly where I am on all counts. Stick with it!

generally we all care about what is true and the future of life on this planet

But (to stay true to the spirit of debate I just defended) is this not itself a straw man? Do you think, say, religious conservatives would say that they don’t “care about what is true and the future of life on this planet”?

To be clear, you join the echo chamber because you won’t be judged there and also because you want to dissent from its party line?

The downvote button. It’s a hobby horse of mine. Slashdot got it right: if you’re going to tell someone to shut up, there should be a small price to pay.

PS: to the inevitable downvoters. Let’s be clear that you are not just saying “I disagree”. You are helping to hide my comment; you’re literally telling me to shut up. Would you do that in person, without so much as lifting a finger to justify yourself ? Of course you wouldn’t. In person you would have manners. This is the problem I have with the downvote button. It incites people to behave like uncivilized infants.

Agreed on all counts.

The real mystery to me is what value the echo-chamber residents get out of it. Why would someone join a group of people they already agree with, just to be told that their opinions are correct, and to shout down any interloper who contradict them? How is that not a boring waste of time? Is it that most people are insecure in their views and need validation, perhaps? It’s a phenomenon I still don’t understand.

This is how I see it too. Freedom from the toxic ad-supported business model is a slow-burning superpower.