You're wrong. All I was communicating was that libertarianism is a minority of ideologies and thus since most people (including libertarians) tend to down vote comments that support ideologies they disagree with, libertarianism is often under-represented.
Further the rest of your comment was equally fallacious. But by pedantically arguing for your right to put words in my mouth, you have managed to derail the topic into a meta discussion.
So, you illustrate another tactic-- besides downvoting- that is used to prevent effective discussion of libertarianism on social news sites.
>You're wrong. All I was communicating was that libertarianism is a minority of ideologies and thus since most people (including libertarians) tend to down vote comments that support ideologies they disagree with, libertarianism is often under-represented.
If that's "all you was communicating", then you phrased it badly.
"most people are not libertarian, AND SO they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology".
AND SO explicitly states that the reason people vote down post they disagree with is because they are not libertarians.
What you probably WANTED to write --which is made clear only by your subsequent clarification-- is:
"most people are not libertarian AND SO libertarian comments (as well as comments of other marginal ideologies) are voted down more".
Further the rest of your comment was equally fallacious. But by pedantically arguing for your right to put words in my mouth, you have managed to derail the topic into a meta discussion.
So, you illustrate another tactic-- besides downvoting- that is used to prevent effective discussion of libertarianism on social news sites.