Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.
I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.
If a conversation isn’t productive and people are just becoming mean and ugly toward each other, then all we’re left with is people being mean and ugly toward each other. That doesn’t promote community, it creates rage bait. And not that it necessarily means a conversation can’t be productive, I would assume — although maybe incorrectly — that the reason people are on Lemmy is because they’ve seen what happens when rage is monetized on social media platforms, and they came here to get away from that.
all we’re left with is people being mean and ugly toward each other.
Disagree. There would be some people being mean and ugly toward each other, but those subthreads can easily be hidden by the user.
rage is monetized on social media platforms
Yes, we certainly don’t want to encourage rage for attention and clicks. But locking a thread always seemed over-authoritarian to me.
Obviously I’m only talking hypothetically here. I’m trying to understand the logic behind locking threads in general. Nothing against you or regarding this topic in particular.
I guess my idea was that locking the comment thread wouldn’t censor the viewpoints, and everyone could still read the differing views while tamping down on toxicity.
Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.
I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.
Why is some unproductive discourse a problem? Why is it so severe that a (hypothetical) thread lock is needed?
If a conversation isn’t productive and people are just becoming mean and ugly toward each other, then all we’re left with is people being mean and ugly toward each other. That doesn’t promote community, it creates rage bait. And not that it necessarily means a conversation can’t be productive, I would assume — although maybe incorrectly — that the reason people are on Lemmy is because they’ve seen what happens when rage is monetized on social media platforms, and they came here to get away from that.
Disagree. There would be some people being mean and ugly toward each other, but those subthreads can easily be hidden by the user.
Yes, we certainly don’t want to encourage rage for attention and clicks. But locking a thread always seemed over-authoritarian to me.
Obviously I’m only talking hypothetically here. I’m trying to understand the logic behind locking threads in general. Nothing against you or regarding this topic in particular.
I guess my idea was that locking the comment thread wouldn’t censor the viewpoints, and everyone could still read the differing views while tamping down on toxicity.