Do you ever revise your upvotes for a particular sub-thread/conversant when you get the sense they are either bad-faith or do not have sufficient knowledge to justify their participation or comments?
Do you ever revise your upvotes for a particular sub-thread/conversant when you get the sense they are either bad-faith or do not have sufficient knowledge to justify their participation or comments?
If later text shows that my initial reading was incorrect due to missing context or because I misread their starting point, yeah. For example, if something starts off sounding positive but context shows it is actually a dogwhistle I had not come across before I will go back and correct my votes. It rarely takes even a minute to fix a dozen or so in a chain.
It isn't so much that I think my individual votes matter, but because I don't like knowing I gave a positive interactions with that thing.
Same thing if I read something as a negative and find out I was wrong, gonna flip those to upvotes!
If context is really needed to identify something as a dogwhistle, isn't it already an ineffective utility? I'm not doubting you at all--I know next to nothing about any honest dogwhistles, but I'm always curious to know how people avoid the feeling that of paranoia in these instances--how can you be positive you aren't just yielding to a fear of some sort?
Dogwhistles are for the in group to show solidarity. Those outside not recognizing the dogwhistle or having a hard time proving it is a dogwhistle is the entire purpose.