-17
Scientists Witness Plant Cells Generate Cellulose and Form Cell Walls for First Time
(www.rutgers.edu)
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
-17 points (18.5% liked)
science
22294 readers
501 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why is this being downvoted? I’m missing something…
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
You're giving yourself way too much credit.
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! :)
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.
Dude, 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?
People can see my history, too. But I don't assume people down vote me because of my 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?
People can see your profile and down vote you for reasons other than politics. To assume only politics would mean you purposely choose that display name to start a fight.
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?
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?
I'm not the one who made their whole identity about conservatism. Normally that'd be fine, don't get me wrong, but you seem to see yourself as superior to everyone else here for that very reason.
He was a socialist before the election!
Not sure what you mean. This post is a science article that has nothing to do with any election. It's a science community. The article had zero to do with politics.
Mooooooo
ok?
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.
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.
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 wish. My instance doesn’t allow it.
I think the instances that don't allow downvoting are great. Makes people less inclined to be negative about every little thing.