I think describing a 2 line statement as civil discourse worth of engagement really puts some pressure on those 2 lines. Following it up with disagree with words, not downvotes adds to the weight of those lines.
Given the effort ratio, I wouldnt condone downvotes, however I wouldnt be surprised if that was the easiest response.
Also - Downvotes have existed since, at least, slashdot. They are not censorship. They can be misapplied, but it’s not censorship.
This site is also actively moderated. It’s part of the censorship industrial complex as trust and safety is being called now.
At best the person you referring to is ignorant how reality works. But they are also indistinguishable from someone who doesn't value words at all and is lying for political gain.
Why should such be allowed?
Edit - and remember you're not allowed to downvote me because I'm being perfectly civil. But the only way to stop me is to downvote me or get the mods to censor me.
