I agree and disagree with this. There's a difference between not wanting people to disagree with you and not wanting to have a conversation. If the thread was created for the purpose of debate, then yeah, it's a given that people are free to react. If it was created literally just to share your opinion, you can do that and go, choosing not to engage with anyone. Hence, "don't @ me". In other words, "I'm not about to debate the validity of my already unpopular opinion with you, so don't try to get me to do so by sending me a notification about it."
It's fine if you don't want to discuss your opinion with people. But the whole "Don't @ me" thing gives me the vibe that you don't want to hear the people that disagree with you at all. Which is pretty childish, honestly.
From what I've seen, people say "don't @ me" on controversial opinions. Even when used in a joking way (90 percent of all cases from what I've seen), they know people don't agree. Meaning, they've heard the other side already. They know people disagree. They probably know why. I rarely use the phrase (I'm the sort to turn off notifications about a particular post if I've said all I need to say), but I think it's perfectly valid not to want to get into an argument when you know that's where the opinion is bound to lead. If I were to post about a feminist issue and say: "Don't @ me", it would be because I've had that conversation enough times to not want to get into it again. And on some issues, I really do not want to hear the people who disagree with me at all, I've heard them and read from them and listened to them and I still disagree. And in any case, like I said, if it's a thread to post your opinion, nobody's entitled to a debate.
Then refer to my above statement where if you don't want to hear people disagree with your opinion, don't share it. Placing your opinion, controversial or not, out in the open for all of the public to see is an open invitation for them to react to it, for good or bad. Saying "Don't @ me" is trying to have it both ways, which isn't how it works.
And this is where we disagree. I can react to your opinion without directly, forcibly directing you to my reaction. If I think the sky is purple and I've heard people tell me it's green all my life, and someone asks a group I'm a part of: "What color is the sky?" Knowing fully well 3/4 of the people sitting with me are going to say it's green-- again, because I know my opinion is unpopular-- I see nothing wrong with saying "I think it's purple" and leaving it at that.
I don't either. What you're implying, though, is that it's okay to go "It's purple, and I don't want to hear any of you tell me otherwise". To leave out the "Don't @ me" part would be to simply declare that you think the sky is purple, perfectly fine. Not to mention that a private group and a wholly public space (Like a forum thread on the internet) are different scenarios. So what I'm talking about is something akin to calling a press conference, declaring that the sky is purple, and then insisting everyone who heard you stay quiet about it. Is that reasonable? No, of course not.
Like I said, I see it more as "It's purple, and I don't need more people telling me it's green. It's purple, you're allowed to think it's not, but don't get in my face about it." Nobody's insisting people stay quiet about it. People can post in the very same thread about the very same issue saying the exact opposite of what "D@M" person said. I've done it in this thread. Just do not try to force them to interact with your opinion when you know they do not want to and think the opposite, as they requested. It costs nothing to leave people alone, so when someone asks not to @ them, I don't @ them.
The press conference isn't quite the same thing, because the person giving the conference is literally the sole focus of that conference. People left their homes and crossed cities to hear them. One person yelling into the void on a thread with hundreds of replies isn't quite standing on a stage and demanding that everyone listen.
And you don't think that sounds pretentious or ignorant at all?
If you don't want people to tell you they disagree, then don't post the opinion in a public place in the first place. You're one of the people who believes "Freedom of speech" includes "Freedom of consequence", which is fundamentally untrue. That's all I'm trying to say.
You do know everyone who's posted in this thread gets a notification for every post made in it, right? Once that notification goes through, guess what? That is you, demanding the attention of everyone who's following the thread, wanting them to read what you've written. It's more similar than you think.
You actually couldn't be more wrong about that, which isn't surprising, since you do not know me.
this very reason. So yes, I do ignore it. Just like I ignore posts people would rather I ignore, just like I ignore people I don't want to interact with. I did mention that I turn off notifications on things I don't want to be notified about.
You'll forgive me for believing that, because this whole conversation has given me that impression.
So then why the D@M, if you can just ignore them anyway? Seems simple enough to me, and you don't have to sound like an ignorant jackass.
But if you were to replace the electoral college with a direct democracy, you run into a very big issue; tyranny of the majority (which is essentially why the Founders chose the electoral college system). If it was a pure direct democracy, the majority is always placing their special interests above the minority. This turns into oppression of the minority. Then the majority can elect someone who will only work for those in the majority and/or harm the minority. The minority never truly has a say in a direct democracy. The electoral college system gives them a say.
What is this new and exciting thing?
Idk I think it’s a device people use that makes people magically use their company again??? Idk this is just a guess ?What is this new and exciting thing?
????
