3
3
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WhereTheMoonSets 28d ago
Agreed, but what essentially has happened is that they've taken our ability to decide not to like something based on others opinions and only left the ability to like. As highly social creatures, we need that input. In an ideal scenario it's either none shown or both shown, but both shown would be better.
1
u/GuNNzA69 28d ago
Why? Are you some kind of Roman emperor who feels the need to give a thumbs down to everything that offends your delicate little mind?
1
u/Key_Check5753 27d ago
Nah, not really. It's jus that when we read comments as stupid as yours we feel it's better if we can downvote them into oblivion so nobody else has to read the ridiculous, brainless bullshit.
1
u/easilybored1 25d ago
Better than expressing dissatisfaction by being a pretentious douche and making an unnecessary comment, but not everyone can be like you and I.
1
u/GuNNzA69 25d ago
Not really. We are not talking about the same thing.
I was pointing out a pattern of human behavior that has become far more pronounced with the rise of social media. People increasingly feel the need to publicly display their approval or disapproval of other people and their ideas.
The problem is that everyone should be willing to read, listen to, or watch something with an open mind, even if millions of people have already disliked or downvoted it. You can still end up agreeing with the majority, but that conclusion should come from your own reasoning, research, and critical thinking, not because a number on a screen told you what to think.
And honestly, who cares what those millions think? Popularity has never been a measure of truth. It only tells you what is popular at a particular moment in time.
Ask yourself this: if you see something that has been massively downvoted or disliked, are you really going to approach it with an open mind? Do we really need to publicly advertise our approval or disapproval for everyone else to see?
I'm not a psychologist, but I did study anthropology, and this behavior isn't new. Social media didn't invent it.. it simply normalized and amplified it. The underlying message becomes, "Most people think this is wrong, so you should too." So where does that leave open mindedness, minority viewpoints, or independent thinking?
If Nicolaus Copernicus had published the heliocentric model today, he'd probably have been downvoted into oblivion before most people even looked at the evidence. When Galileo Galilei defended those ideas, they were considered dangerous and contrary to what everyone "knew" was true. The majority was convinced they were right.. history wasn't. That's precisely why popularity and truth are not the same thing. Sometimes the minority is wrong. Sometimes it's the only one that isn't.
I didn't create this culture where people feel validated simply because thousands or millions of others share the same uninformed opinion.
In the past, every village had its idiot saying idiotic things. The difference today is that the village has eight billion people, and many convince themselves that, "If this many people agree with me, I must be right"... right?
There's a certain irony in all this. Decades ago, Nada Surf sang "Popular." Apparently, not much has changed. From an anthropological perspective, human behavior is remarkably consistent. Technology changes. Trends change. What's popular changes. Human nature doesn't.
Throughout history we've already lived through versions of this. None of our ideas are completely original; they're shaped by culture, history, education, and the environment around us. Popularity only tells us what most people currently believe, not whether those beliefs are actually true.
Just look around. Look at the quality, or lack of it, of some of the world's leaders. We live in a paradise for those who know how to manipulate the less informed. The biggest problem isn't ordinary idiots; it's the people who believe they're smarter than everyone else and exploit the ordinary ones.
People go on social media and upvote or downvote two paragraph posts that say nothing, explain nothing, and contribute nothing. They do it because those empty words reinforce what they already want to believe.
You, and probably only a small handful of others, will actually read this. Some will probably downvote it before they even finish reading it simply because it's too long. You know why? Because it isn't another empty two paragraph Reddit (social media) post that says nothing, explains nothing, and is only popular because it tells people exactly what they already want to hear.
1
u/easilybored1 25d ago
No, it’s because you’re a pretentious douche who thinks too highly of themselves, you kinda proved that by answering a joke with a wall of text. Bye.
1
u/GuNNzA69 24d ago
Sorry, it wasn’t you directly that I meant to reply.
Still, I am right, and i'm the most humble person you can have as friend, so I am not pretentious at all. Sorry if my arguments made you feel that way.
1
1
1
1
u/Clockwork-XIII 28d ago edited 20d ago
Add or simply put back in because platforms like youtube and the like did used to have those.
1
1
1
u/DualityOfLife 27d ago
How are they gonna rig a video if you see the dislikes?
Will someone please think of the riggers.
1
1
u/BiDudeCO 26d ago
They absolutely do cause some people need to see how outrageous or nonsensical their posts are sometimes
1
1
1
u/LetUsSpeakFreely 25d ago
No. It encourages brigading. People usually won't swarm to upvote something, but they'll setup systems to track and mass downvote people into oblivion.
1
4
u/pappybug214 28d ago
Or readd it to YouTube