[denverkarma]

Hah! This got downvoted in the first second after posting, which to me says the down-voter couldn’t have read past the first sentence. Come on now, HN downvotes are for unconstructive or inappropriate comments. If you disagree you’re not supposed to downvote, you’re supposed to reply :)

[pbourke]

People are also brigading comments from other accounts despite them being substantive. HN guidelines say not to comment on voting but something sure seems up here.

[bobwaycott]

> If you disagree you’re not supposed to downvote, you’re supposed to reply :)

This is incorrect. However, you may find this portion of the guidelines for comments enlightening:

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

[denverkarma]

Yes, I saw that after another commenter pointed me toward the guidelines. I would delete the parent comment, but then I wouldn’t get to offer an apology. Thanks for flagging this to me.

[dec0dedab0de]

On hn downvotes are for posts you disagree with. Inappropriate or unconstructive get flagged.

For what its worth I upvoted your first comment because i agree, and downvoted your second for complaining about votes

[mattrp]

Thanks for that clarity on the rules. I’m neither upvoting or downvoting... I think the first half of the comment is very well written and something I would have liked to have written myself. The second half, the idea that we must all sit down together and have lunch, I struggle to accept. In my opinion, regardless of part of the political spectrum you are, i don’t think you should have to shed your guiding principles. However, that said, I don’t think your organizing principle should be to get everyone to agree with you or to implement your system as the only system. Just as there are thousands and thousands of plant species and what? Millions of insect species, I think it’s important to reflect on the fact that our individual minds in a way make each of us an individual species. While we may from time to time see beauty in collective acts, humans are not meant to be starlings flying in a well orchestrated flock. I cannot begin to suggest I understand depression but I can say that I resist psycho-labeling what goes on in my mind or in yours. Every thought is a gift.

[denverkarma]

Well, I re-read the guidelines, and I have to admit they do say to reply but don’t specifically say not to downvote. Not sure where I got the idea that was one of the rules.

I see it also says don’t comment on votes, which I hadn’t noticed before. I would go back and delete that comment but then your reply would make no sense, so oh well.

Thank you for posting your explanation and helping set me straight on HN etiquette, I appreciate it!

[denverkarma]

@mattrp, looks like we’re at the max thread depth. Thanks for your comment.

I certainly don’t mean to say people should shed their ideas, or that we should be starlings that flock together.

But I do think it’s important to see humanity as one species, one people, who have most things in common and thrive by working together constructively.

That’s why I feel it’s important to seek to understand the people who see the world differently than you, rather than just exist in blind opposition to them.

When we let our ideology define who we are it becomes a religion, and world history has plenty of examples of people taking religious ideology as a reason to blindly oppose and eventually wage literal war on “the other.”

Meanwhile, healthy mutual tolerance comes from seeking to understand and then arranging life in such a way that each person can have their own ideas and worldview without needing to quash the others.

To me that feels like just a description of liberal philosophy, so it’s surprising I most often have this conversation with friends leaning far left who are so angry they are thinking more in terms of how to wage a war than how to find a workable mutual tolerance.

[mercer]

I'm surprised that you're surprised. As far as I understand it one of the fundamental differences between what we generally call 'leftists' and 'liberals' is that the latter think we should solve problems by talking and trying to understand, whereas the former considers this as silly as expecting a slave to sit down with his masters and discuss the inconvenience of the beatings and workload.

Better for the slaves to sit down and write complex analyses on what is wrong about slavery and bicker amongst themselves about the details (I joke)!

But anyways, obviously most 'leftists' wouldn't equate slavery with their own situation, and I'd argue most of them do want to go as far as possible through understanding and conversation. But to some degree I'd say that's the basic point of view.