Oh and I just used that joke on my gf, and took all the credit. She rolled her eyes, then laughed. So just know that someone else laughed, but I took the clever credits. :)

Ok, I laughed at that. You win the interwebs, guy!

Have my upvote! LMAO

Good question!

Right?! lol

It’s not what you say. It’s what you do.

Fair enough. So what have I done that leads you to that conclusion?

I’m not the one who made their whole identity about conservatism.

Nor have I. I’m just posting non-political science articles to a non-political science community. I don’t look at someone’s post history, profile or poltics before I decide to downvote them.

Someone asked why the downvotes and I gave my theory that it was based on politics and not science or sources.

You seemed to imply that you disagreed with my take, yet your comments keep referring to the very politics that I stated in my original reasoning.

you seem to see yourself as superior to everyone else here for that very reason.

I have never said anything like that, nor do I feel that way. What have I said in this community that in any way, shape, or form implies that I see myself as “superior” to anyone?! In fact, I’ve mentioned that I don’t care about downvotes or upvotes–I was merely responding to someones question under an article I posted.

I’m just a guy posting links to science articles appropriate for a science community.

People can see your profile and down vote you for reasons other than politics

Fair point. So what in my profile do you think people would downvote me for? It doesn’t say anything provocative, so I’m curious. And then if someone were downvoting me for my profile, then my original point stands, that people are downvoting for political reason. Because why else would someone downvote a science article based on a non-provocative profile.

And again, I would have to ask, what type of people view on a posters profile before downvoting a non-political science article from a valid source, and posted to a non-political science community?

To assume only politics would mean you purposely choose that display name to start a fight.

But what about my screen name would cause that? Because the name may be poltical? And if so, wouldn’t that yet again, validate my original point that it’s about politics and not the science?!

I have not chosen anything to start any fights. Nor have I advocated any fighting, arguing, or violence. I’ve also engaged in no namecalling.

So if it’s not about politics, then what could it be? Because my name doesn’t say any bad words, or have any slurs in it. Care to explain what would be offensive about my name or profile if it’s not politics?

So the downvotes aren’t about politics?

Then why did you reply: “Nothing exists in a vacuum. People can see your history”?

What “history” would you be referring too? And what would that have to do with downvotes? You mentioned the history aspect, so maybe you can clarify.

And why would someone click on a poster’s “history” before downvoting a non-political science article in a non-political science community from a recognized and valued source?

Nothing exists in a vacuum. People can see your history.

So then I was right. People are downvoting based on politics. Which I mentioned.

Now why would someone look up someone’s “history” before reading a non-political science article posted in a non-political science community?! And then downvote based on that history rather than the actual science article?!

I wonder who would do that?

You’re just making baseless assumptions and accusations about people you know nothing about. Which is good enough reason right there for them to down vote you.

But the article was downvoted before I said that. I gave that explanation after someone commented on all the downvotes.

So any explanation? :)

I actually don’t care about downvotes or upvotes. I won’t stop posting and I won’t leave Lemmy. But someone asked and I gave the reason.

No I’m not. Even other people are asking why you all are downvoting. lol

Hmmm, maybe you have a theory of why people would downvote an article from www.rutgers.edu

But don’t worry, I won’t stop posting. And I won’t leave Lemmy. So no worries! :)

I don’t think anyone is using the word “preemie” to bully anyone. But hey, you do you. Fight it all you want. I’m indifferent to the term. But if you can make people stop using it, then more power to ya.

They’re not downvoting the article, they’re downvoting the poster–me.

Because even tho this is a non-political science community, some people on Lemmy are mad that I voted a certain way in the last election and that I post conservative articles in conservative communites, so they follow me around to downvote everything I post. Regardless of subject matter. Regardless of community.

Some people take Lemmy way too seriously. lol

I worked in a hospital for over 10 years. Nurses and docs use the word preemie as well. I don’t think it’s the slur that you think it is.

Yeah, Lemmy has definitely been turning into a bunch of Negative Nancys lately. The best thing we can do to fight it, is to just press on, ignore the downvotes, and keep posting great content.

I’m not stirring anything. I explained to you why I did something.

The issue is over as far as I’m concerned. Until the mods say otherwise, I’ll keep posting the same way.

Actually seems to me that you are the one making a big deal out of it. I posted a link to a science article. You can click it and read it, or not. But it’s weird that you implied that was a lot of work to do.

Lots of communities don’t allow posting text of the article, only links to the article. This community says “rules under construction” so I just defaulted to linking directly to the article. Which is never a bad thing.

But this user seems to have a personal issue with me (based on his history of being mad at me in politics subs) rather than the article post. Which is sorta strange, because this community is about science and NOT politics.

So yes, please be an active participant in the community. Post links to articles that fit here. It helps Lemmy grow!

Is that allowed though? Some communites just want you to send the article. So I default to that. If you don’t wanna click on the article, that’s fine. But it’s strange you seem upset about it. Just move on if you don’t like my posts.

If the mods have a problem with my post, they can speak up and/or remove.

While Science Daily is a reputable source, just cite the actual material they’re referencing.

I posted a link to the article on Science Daily. Is that not appropriate for this community?