/lit/ - Literature

>>16637043
they just ignore it and call it sexist despite anime femoids being infinitely more interesting than western television moids.

>>16317149
>Upvotes are cancer
I think the intended purpose for upvotes has always been "this is good content" (objective evaluation) rather than "I like/agree this" (subjective evaluation), but for whatever reason, people (came to?) understand them as the latter, and now it's too late to reverse the damage.

With Twitter it's even worse, they saw that a feature was being mis-used by a sizable amount of users, and changed the design accordingly. Stars used to work as bookmarks, but then people started using them as "likes", and they were changed to hearts to reflect this. As far as I know (I haven't used Twitter in a while) there isn't a way to just "favorite" a Tweet anymore.

I suppose you partially fix Reddit's problem by disabling upvotes, and leaving only downvotes: if content gets enough downvotes it gets hidden. But you'd still have to figure out a way to promote good content, and the metrics like how many people clicked/replied on it are more likely to expose "controversial" content, rather than "good" content.

Then again, StackOverflow and its sister sites have up/downvotes too, but they're used as intended, and users sometimes explain why they voted in a certain manner. But that's more likely due to the technical nature of the site, which in itself enforces objectivity. This attitude carries over to other sites where answers are necessarily more on the subjective side, such as the Writing Stack Exchange. Their FAQ states:

>You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
>[...]
>Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:
>[...]
>tend to have long, not short, answers;
>have a constructive, fair, and impartial tone;
>invite sharing experiences over opinions;
>insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references

https://writing.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask

I feel like the internet is becoming more self-aware of Reddit, and derogatory memes like "Reddit moment" and "basedboy" are slowly entering the mainstream. However, I'm not sure whether they'll be enough to affect things. If you call someone a "simp", will they stop being paypigs? If you call someone a "boomer", will they stop thinking they're always right?

In the best case, you're just shitposting/seething (depending on how ironic you are). In the worst case, your insults reinforce their self-image/group identity, and your resistance only makes them stronger. Either way, you're not likely to make a lasting effect. You can only hope that Reddit eventually dies off, like a lot of social media sites did before them. I suppose a few scandals about them being owned by Chinese companies, and data being leaked (see Facebook), would help speed up the process.

>>16130895
It's not if you're the dominant one.

>>15683542
Once some Anon said something along the lines of, only retards and truly smart people believe in religion. The retards do because it's easy to grasp, the smart people do because it's the lie they feed to retards in order to make them behave. It's the people of average intelligence that are the problem. They're smart enough not to be tricked, and realize that they don't need God for morals, but also stupid enough to not realize that religion is absolutely necessary to teach moral rules to retards.
Their lack of intelligence is also the reason they worship science like a religion, it's because it makes them feel smarter than they are. And there's definitely detrimental effects to rejecting spirituality, too.

>>15656974
Is there anything more based than gloating about how the Overton window is shifted in your favor, just to make the other side seethe, because they know they can't do anything, but throw words at you, while you can strike them with impunity?