[danans]

> Though I will say it's still a decent place to have a debate as long as you are fine with ... going negative, which I am.

Just a hunch, but that might explain a lot of your negative karma.

A lot of people here enjoy civil, friendly debates people who they disagree with completely on a given topic, but "going negative" is a great way to send your karma down.

Stay away from negativity directed at others, use charity in your arguments, and above all, don't be sarcastic, and your karma will rise, regardless of the topic. And to be clear, I'm speaking from my own experience here and on other internet forums or mailing lists.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

You misconstrued that quote, all that sentence meant was I'm fine with defending sides that I know are unpopular and will lose me karma.

Most importantly to gain karma you need to choose the "correct" side, like you do. Ya'know, the Beto gun confiscation side.

If you go against the crowd you will be downvoted, period. That's no surprise, I'm just giving you guys insight what it's like outside the bubble. It's definitely not mainstream libertarian here.

[danans]

> You misconstrued that quote, all that sentence meant was I'm fine with defending sides that I know are unpopular and will lose me karma.

Ok. That's an novel meaning of the phrase "going negative" to me, but you know what you meant.

> Most importantly to gain karma you need to choose the "correct" side, like you do. Ya'know, the Beto gun confiscation side.

You misread my comment [1] on that subject. I didn't take the pro gun-confiscation side in that comment. I addressed another comment about how the assault-weapon confiscation procedure would take place if they were in fact banned. Whether or not I support a ban on assault weapons (I do) was irrelevant to the comment. You might notice that I also argued that if a ban were put in place, that owners of those weapons must be given the opportunity to voluntarily turn in those weapons without the immediate threat of violence being used against them.

> It's definitely not mainstream libertarian here.

Sure. It more neoliberal (lower taxes, less social safety net) than the anarcho-capitalist or ethno-nationalist libertarianism that you might see elsewhere. But all those viewpoints are represented here, as are democratic socialist (like me), labor unionists, and other shades of the political left.

Outside of the ethno-nationalists, most of those viewpoints don't get downvoted unless they use personally offensive rhetoric (i.e demeaning particular demographics, advocating violence against the rich, contempt for the poor, etc).

A viewpoint that gets downvoted no-matter-what is ethno-nationalism. I'm OK with that, because I think we have plenty of documented history of ethno-nationalism to understand why it has no place in public discourse.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23656498

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

> but you know what you meant.

Yes I know what I meant because I wrote it, I'm telling you that you interpreted wrong.

> I didn't take the pro gun-confiscation side in that comment.

You didn't have to, you were defending the confiscation process. As another user pointed out to you, the government asking before forcing to take your guns is no different than a bank robber passing a note to the clerk with a threat written on it.

> It more neoliberal (lower taxes, less social safety net)

I don't ever see anyone on here advocating for less regulation and lower taxes. I mainly see marxists, socialists, and liberals.

> Outside of the ethno-nationalists, most of those viewpoints don't get downvoted unless they use personally offensive rhetoric

That's convenient and untrue. No, not all viewpoints that get downvoted are offensive unless you count them being offensive to the opposing political ideology.