@suzianne said“Stalin”
This is more gaslighting.
Limiting freedom of expression adds no value, all it does is limit criticism.
You asshats consider this a good thing. So did Stalin.
The ONLY way to add value is to allow people the freedom to disagree. Limiting freedom of expression does the opposite. It doesn't add value, it subtracts value.
Dear me.
11 Feb 23
@kewpie saidThis would certainly be an excellent secondary piece of coding, but I hold to my proposal that making thumbs available to subscribers only (as with alerts) would instantly cut out the abuse of the function and require minimal programming time.
The topic of this thread is thumbs. I'd like to propose a simple program change (venda's suggestion above) which I believe would solve the problem once and for all.
Russ, could we please have an option to turn off the visibility of thumbs added to our preference options?
Thumb-haters could forget about them altogether, thumb-lovers wouldn't get so crabby whenever the topic comes up. Win-win.
@suzianne saidThen, seeing as there is also [surely?] a common-sense right to know who one is being accused or criticized by - something missing from Stalinist regimes, I note - then perhaps making thumbs 'not anonymous' would be the correct compromise.
The ONLY way to add value is to allow people the freedom to disagree. Limiting freedom of expression does the opposite. It doesn't add value, it subtracts value.
@suzianne saidyou are just a jerk... a butthurt snowflake... the asshats can simply continue being asshats
But it wasn't being abused. Some people got a majority of alerts because people saw them for what they were... asshats.
It's about time you realize that if you act like an ass, people will respond to you, and if you are just a jerk, you might find their response... unfavorable.
The abusers were the people getting the alerts, for good reason. That's why you insisted t ...[text shortened]... ting the natural response so that you and the rest of the asshats can simply continue being asshats.
You have given me Exhibit No.2,329 supporting my view that the thumbs feature is an infantile blight on this otherwise excellent website.
@divegeester saidWe knew you'd be back.
Russ, you may have noticed that there has been some debate about this feature and I would like to make a serious suggestion.
The answer is still no. No matter how hard and how often you whine.
@fmf saidSo you can commit a pogrom of abuse towards them, as you are wont to do against those who disagree with you publicly?
Then, seeing as there is also [surely?] a common-sense right to know who one is being accused or criticized by - something missing from Stalinist regimes, I note - then perhaps making thumbs 'not anonymous' would be the correct compromise.
@shallow-blue saidThe word is entirely the correct word to use.
Don't use words whose meaning you don't know.
Limiting one's freedom to disagree doesn't make the signals of disagreement that do get through any more "valuable". It just looks like less people disagree, which is what they want.
Don't condone the abuse that causes most of the red thumbs. They will misrepresent anything in their quest to limit the freedom of those who disagree with them.
@fmf saidAnd what does my post have to do with any thumbs you may have received and gotten butthurt about, Mr. Asshat?
you are just a jerk... a butthurt snowflake... the asshats can simply continue being asshats
You have given me Exhibit No.2,329 supporting my view that the thumbs feature is an infantile blight on this otherwise excellent website.
@divegeester saidAgain, the feature is NOT being abused. It is "working as intended".
This would certainly be an excellent secondary piece of coding, but I hold to my proposal that making thumbs available to subscribers only (as with alerts) would instantly cut out the abuse of the function and require minimal programming time.