In a way, iirc, it really is. It's as much a "I disagree" as it is "I don't like this". That said, I would like to see more people actually respond in addition to a downvote.

I don't think that's generally a function of the moderators though.

Flagging is used by people who have no rebuttal but are mad.

That's why I have only flagged one or two posts, ever, but not because I was mad, but because the comment was just plain beyond the pale.

And my posts against portaying violent rape in film got flagged.

Make it make sense, because I understand the failure of this system because systems are my trade-in-craft.

Nope, sometimes I would have a rebuttal but flagging is the better option (constructive discussion is hard without mutual respect, and/or don't feed the troll). Or, the comment doesn't even have anything to refute, it's just disrespectful or it's spam, or both.

I have flagged a few comments but I'm rarely mad.

And if one is mad because of a disrespectful comment, the flagging is probably appropriate too.

> constructive discussion is hard without mutual respect

Yes, indeed.

> Flagging is used by people who have no rebuttal but are mad

This is cope, just like "I'm being downvoted for speaking the truth!". Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them".

I suggest you try to steelman the idea of flagging and see that maybe there could be other things at play.

> Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them".

Precisely. That's the biggest problem with closed-minded fools.

I don't understand your point, sorry.

Or maybe you misunderstand (on purpose?). I'm saying you attribute those downvotes incorrectly. It's maybe natural to do so as an instinct -- "those people are against me!" -- but on HN it's expected to be a bit more introspective. It's incorrect to say that "people downvote because I'm right" or "people downvote because they have nothing to say".

To be 'ignorant' requires willfully _ignoring_ the truth.

That's why you say I'm incorrect, because you are the center of the universe and have nothing to learn. You say you don't understand, then accuse me of willfully misunderstanding?

People aren't aginst me, they're against the truth, because very few people consider compassion to be the most important scale we should measure our attitudes and behaviors against.

"Nothing is more important than compassion, and only the truth is its equal."

"A fool is a person who hears the truth, and calls it a lie."

I love you. You shouldn't denigrate me, friend.

The point is that those who already know everything are ignorant fools who are ignoring the truth because they are self-satisfied with their own level of attainment. They don't know they have read a new truth that they should integrate into their being, so they lash out at that truth and the person who is trying to expand their worldview.

In other words, most people are intellectual and moral cowards, happy to carry the torch for their cultures' idiotic traditions, without ever thinking twice or entertaining outside opinions.

Peace be with you.

> To be 'ignorant' requires willfully _ignoring_ the truth

No it doesn't. To borrow from the law, ignorance requires no scienter. It simply means you lack knowledge of factual or situational context, willfully or otherwise.