So what’s new in DuhSantistan?

good point. Like a “ good for you, nice try”

 

Guess he missed prayer day in 2022. If only someone else could have stepped in for him. It’s a vengeful god you Christian’s have. I bet he’d take dislike ratings poorly.

 

Normally when someone fails at humor I think, "keep your day job" but in the Governors case, I think not.

 

Not that my personal opinion is of any value in deducing communal uses of the ratings, but I have always seen the two ratings as different in terms of their moral judgement. To me “Disagree” implies a difference in interpretation of the facts but no moral judgment cast on the opposing comment. Meanwhile, I see “Dislike” as making a negative normative assessment on the post in question. Here’s how I would interpret each with a hypothetical example:

Original post: “Trump is the worst president in US history.”

Disagree: “I don’t think that Trump is actually the worst president.”

Dislike: “Your claim about Trump is worthy of animus.”

In my interpretation here, it is virtually certain that a dislike would also imply disagreement, but the reverse is not true.

I agree that it should be acceptable to use either, but I also appreciate the request that negative ratings be accompanied by explanations to make clear the nature of the disagreement. JMO.

 

That sounds good in theory, but it wouldn't work in practice because of trolls. This issue was discussed on the Insider board a while ago. If everyone had to explain their negative ratings, a troll could post something outrageous and enjoy a flood of mandatory replies, leading to a lot of unnecessary comments and clutter. Sometimes the doctrine of ipsa loquitur is applicable and justified.

 

Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that issue. I wonder if that has been a problem here. This is the current rule in effect on this board:

L. Posters with little posting history may NOT leave negative ratings without providing an explanation. To put this another way, posters with an established position do not have to explain their negative ratings when the post goes against their established position. Moderators or Administrators of the forums will determine if the poster's history is enough so that the poster may give negative ratings.

 

It seems a pretty archaic policy. I don’t see why a new poster can’t dole out negative ratings as they see fit. It’s as if you’re saying “because you’re new your opinion matters less”. What is enough history anyway, 100, 500, 1000 posts? If you’re going to to it why not articulate a policy? If it turns out the poster is a troll take a ban hammer to them. Some people seem overly worried about negative ratings. We are all adults (well most of us). Why should we care? This isn’t some professional society. No one knows anyone here (for the most part). Also just MHO everyone (myself included) gives out too many ratings. Pare the choices down to funny like dislike and disagree. That’s enough.

 

As I understand the wording, the new poster part of the rule is more about information than street cred. If one agrees with a 10% flat tax, it’s clear what their position is. If one gives a disagree only, it is completely unclear why. Do they hate flat taxes? Do they like flat taxes but think 10% is too high? Too low? However, if you have a regular poster that has an established progressive position on tax policy, the disagree alone can suffice to convey that information. Personally, I don’t mind negative ratings, but I do come here for the ideological exchange, so if I get a disagree from an unknown poster, it certainly ends up being useless toward this end.

Like you, I wouldn’t mind if we pruned the ratings options, but I also don’t mind if the options remain. There are a few I basically never use, and that’s fine.

 

Looks like DeSantis is trying to come up with pretext to remove another popularly elected prosecutor, in this case a black woman.

 

And he's targeting the Leon County Superintendent. Autocratic turd.

 

Local elections don’t have consequences. May DeSantis get the justice he deserves, in this life or the ext

 

Looks like Texas is also battling objective truth

 

I believe the intent of the rule is to prevent people who don't post or only post rarely from doing a bunch of drive-by ratings.

 

Ok not a big deal anyway..

 

Ron DeTedious: DeSantis underwhelms Britain’s business chiefs

 

that’s becoming a pattern. He needs to impress folks outside the friendly confines of Florida conservatives, and he just doesn’t.

 

This is true. It's trollish behavior.

Some are annoyed by it - others are not. But as it's most likely an intentionally offensive practice, it is not permitted on THFSG. Contact a moderator if you think you have been targeted by a Negative Nelly with no posting history.

 

This descriptive appellation brought to mind another - Ron DeTendentious