What gets you downvoted?
What gets you downvoted?
What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don't think it's bad behavior in the first place, or don't care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here...
One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it's small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do "Top Day" on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don't like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.
You're viewing a single thread.
Anything that doesn't suck the dick of the gun lobby. Easily that. Second place isn't even close. Even just asking "how?" when they claim their guns are the solutions will get you downvoted. They'll ask questions and then downvote you for answering.
And of course, it's only in threads on gun violence (when they're doing damage control) or about marginalized groups (when they're drumming up sales). Make the same comments under a post they haven't thought to brigade and they won't be even slightly unpopular.
There are pro-gun people on Lemmy!?
Yep. When someone inevitably looks through the voting history on these kinds of comments, I won't be shocked if they find its 4 people and 50 sock puppets.
I would be shocked if the gun lobby weren't astroturfing though. They oppose red flag laws, take money from Russia and give tens of millions of dollars to the most revolting, far-right Republicans in the country. They're hardly going to draw the line at lying on social media.
I'm trying to change the way we refer to gun owners. I'm not settled on an actual name yet, but for the moment I'm referring to them as "shitebag cowards afraid of their own shadows"
It needs work, I admit
Not every gun owner is a POS like you say they are. A decent chunk of gun owners would be willing to give up their weapons if it legitimately helped society substantially. There's also legitimate reasons to have a gun if you have a home in a high-crime area or are otherwise a target. Why would you lump those groups in with NRA lobbyists?
A decent chunk of gun owners would be willing to give up their weapons if it legitimately helped society substantially
Those are not the views of the people who represent them, nor does it routinely turn up in dicussions about gun control.
There's also legitimate reasons to have a gun if you have a home in a high-crime area or are otherwise a target.
If guns actually delivered on this promise, America wouldn't have "high crime areas" in the first place. It would be the safest country in the world by a huge margin.
Instead, the crime rate in the USA is functionally identical to other wealthy countries, only with a layer of gun violence on top that the rest of the world simply doesn't have.
Americas gun laws help far more criminals than they dissuade. Even in the rare cases where a criminal can't just buy a gun from any store that sells them, "responsible gun owners" arm hundreds of thousands of criminals every year with their poorly secured firearms.
Why would you lump those groups in with NRA lobbyists?
If they don't like being lumped in with lobbyists, reactionaries and idiots, they can take it up with them because I'm not going to include a 5 page "not all gun owners" disclaimer at the top of every post so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. This shit is killing people for fucks sake.
Those are not the views of the people who represent them, nor does it routinely turn up in dicussions about gun control.
By that logic, regardless of what I do, say, or believe, because my president represents me, I support the conflict in Gaza. Furthermore, since my governor actively takes part in NRA conventions, I wholeheartedly support the NRA. Considering that individual people don't get to freely choose their representatives or especially the leaders of lobbying groups, this point is unfair.
If guns actually delivered on this promise, America wouldn't have "high crime areas" in the first place. It would be the safest country in the world by a huge margin.
I'm strictly talking about someone's right to use a gun to stop a criminal in or around their home, which isn't a population-scale thing. 1 responsible gun owner in a neighborhood of 50 houses doesn't protect all 50 houses. Also, many of these high-crime places make it incredibly difficult for responsible people to get a gun legally while other US states make it too easy for irresponsible/malicious people to get them.
America's gun laws help far more criminals than they dissuade. Even in the rare cases where a criminal can't just buy a gun from any store that sells them, "responsible gun owners" arm hundreds of thousands of criminals every year with their poorly secured firearms.
If we're talking about the US as a whole, I definitely agree. I'd however argue that those who don't lock up their firearms properly aren't responsible owners, even if they have good intentions. In my ideal world, guns should be easy to get once in a while for people who pass rigorous training. Engineers and medical professionals need their licenses to be maintained because they are often making decisions that make the difference between life and death. Gun ownership needs to be treated similarly.
If they don't like being lumped in with lobbyists, reactionaries and idiots, they can take it up with them because I'm not going to include a 5 page "not all gun owners" disclaimer at the top of every post so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. This shit is killing people for fucks sake.
Reasoning like this is why I freaking hate modern discourse. Treating all gun owners like this isn't effective messaging because it's such a binary way of viewing peoples' beliefs. It's essentially like an elementary school teacher punishing the entire class because one student was misbehaving. If your goal is to root out the bad apples, you need to convince the good ones to get rid of the bad ones and work with you. Saying "if you own a gun, you have blood on your hands" is much different from saying "look, I get your concerns, so let's both get what we want." The latter is what led to small policy changes in the federal government. The former more binary way of thinking is what causes gridlock in Congress and what caused Uvalde.
Like I said, take it up with them. I've got no interest in getting to know every single gun owner and every one of their tedious, bullshit opinions and I'm definitely not going to be shamed into giving them a free pass until I've kissed every one of them on the mouth.
Edit: I just noticed that the end of your comment genuinely asserts that "not being nice enough to gun owners caused Ulvade" and I think it's important to tell you to go fuck yourself and don't stop until you bleed out.
The Ulvade shooter was a legal gun owner, in a state the pro-gun community claims a utopia. He had a history of death and rape threats but the pro-gun community staunchly opposed any kind of red flag laws. After the shooting, the pro-gun community was adamant that no laws should be changed, essentially saying "we were fine with this gun sale and we'll be fine with the next".
All those words claiming "I'm not like other
girlsgun owners" and it turns out you're exactly like them -- a self absorbed, manipulative scumbag trying to pretend it's part of some noble cause.Dude, I'm saying the insane polarization and treating people's opinions as binary is what's causing gridlock on the federal level and dumb laws on the state level. I am calling Texas' "constitutional carry" law dumb and the reason for the 2 or 3 major shootings that we've had.
It's also great how you chose to not at least skim through my argument and instead decided to cherry-pick a sentence or 2 to respond to out of context. You didn't read the part where I made a distinction between legal and responsible ownership. You illustrated my last point perfectly because you're so completely blinded by hatred and ignorance of people you're not even willing to learn about.
P.S. I've never owned a gun and probably never will, so it's really funny to see you attack me for that.
I didn't say they were pieces of shit, I said they were pathetic cowards
Anyone who owns a handgun is a pathetic coward
They hate when you refer to the legal gun owners who do mass shootings and execute their partners as "former responsible gun owners".
Not enough to stop selling domestic abusers guns or anything, but boy do they get pissy.