You don’t know. Maybe Rob looks at Bob and it appears that Bob is having the time of his life. You don’t know. You have zero evidence.

And there you go. On zero evidence you brand Rob a dick.

Isn’t that interesting?

I am suffering from bad thinking. Please correct me.

Ok here’s an example.

Bob : “When I put on a dress people look at me funny, which is hurtful.”

Rob : “Meh, you don’t look very hurt to me.”

BAM! Rob just argued against Bob’s suffering, which is a sin. And now everybody will justifiably hate on him.

But why, exactly? What’s the logic here? Why does suffering get excepted from analysis?

We have certain groups of people that you are required to acknowledge the suffering of (racial, sexual, genderal, identityal, mental etc groups).

If you fail to acknowledge their suffering then that’s pretty much the same thing as failing to downplay your own suffering. A failure to self-martyrize. Which is a sin.

Otoh if you DO successfully self-martyrize this way then you become a member of the secret martyrs club. Which is very popular.

The suffering one automatically has the stronger argument. Because you aren’t allowed to argue suffering, you have to just accept the truth of it. If you question it you are guilty of minimizing the suffering of a suffering person, which is a sin.

Therefore establishing yourself as “the suffering one” has automatic power in a debate. So that’s something nice to have.

Also, is that the martyr? If the point is to draw attention and such, that’s narcissistic, sure.

(being a martyr is a big power. Half the Catholic Church’s saints are martyrs. They build churches to those guys)

And if you present yourself as the representative of the suffering ones then it’s martyr by proxy? Narcissism by proxy?

Also, re the downvotes you’re experiencing. The kids really hate having their game analyzed, even to this minimal degree.

I swear somebody’s gonna get a research paper out of this stuff.

jesus christ

You’re a classy guy. I’m sure the rest of your herd thinks you’re the bee’s knees.

For older bigots you would filter them away.

For brand new bigots. That might require a “if the person’s history is too small, exclude” type rule. Which is less than ideal, yes. Lots of false positives there.

But let’s not put the cart before the horse. I think it’s a pretty good idea and I’d like to see it tested.

Your approach requires the targetted minority to experience the hate first

That isn’t so. There is vote propagation among peers to consider.

If a trusted (upvoted) peer or peers downvotes a bigot (by downvoting the bigot’s posts) then you will see that bigot downvoted in your own perspective as well.

Yes, I am guilty of having conversations exactly like this one here.

Yes, we need a control. But control by the worst of us is a bad control. And yes, there is a race to the bottom for control here.

Because nothing says truth like a consensus of smug fellows like yourself, right?

Yes, an area full of assholes is bad. But an area full of smug fellows like yourself might actually be worse. The average asshole seems less inclined to team up with likeminded assholes and call their group vibe “objectivity”.

I offered an alg up there in the thread. Browse for 1.5 seconds, you’ll find it.

well I offered one up there in the thread.

A self-reflective hivemind evolving towards moral perfection.

You parse sentences like a bot.

clear as mud. Come on, risk an opinion.

The cracking-resistance of this system is in the voters who are smart enough to vote as they like (flatworms can do it, so can we) and the depth and complexity of an organic voter/votee history, which would be hard to fake or quickly synthesize.

Of course, yes, the proof requires pudding. A Lemmy fork? Ugh, it’s a lot of work. Maybe a friendly hs teacher can make it the class project.

Nicely rendered. You have given me food for thought.