It doesn't. That's why I've shown a hesitance to talk about it.
On topic - As Rol plainly stated, if someone were to view a thread with two people arguing two sides of an issue, and one side has a bunch of likes and the other has a few or none, the one with fewer likes should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users. This is a clearly narrative he will use going forward on this site.
It's painfully hard for me to admit, but I really have to agree with Rol on this. Nowhere, in ANY of his posts, did he come close to suggesting what you're saying - which is why I said, this entire debate you're currently having with him has done nothing to with the "like" functionality.
... because apparently this isn't obvious. Here goes:
No, in order to get a genuine like you would make some meme post, or dogpile on someone else who has an opinion in the minority. They serve no purpose other than distracting from the content of the conversation by reinforcing whichever 'side' of an argument has the most popular opinion, regardless of the content of the argument itself.
This is an argument that I see repeatedly from people who tend to hold unreasonable opinions. I suppose those people are aware of what they post, therefore a like system would tip the scale against them. Once their own posts show little to no likes while counter-arguments have lots of likes, it would be hard to sway people on the fence with FUD. Without a like system, any longer argument would appear to be balanced between both sides, essentially giving the impression that both sides are equally valid; a like system, however, could do away with such a perception quickly because observers of the argument wouldn't be completely invisible anymore.
Rol starts by pointing out that people with unreasonable opinions would have a like system "tip the scale against them". He claims that posts displaying "unreasonable" opinions would be those with "little to no likes", while counter-arguments (and by extension posts that contain what he views as reasonable opinions) would be the ones with "lots of likes". He also indicates that a like system would remove the appearance of a balanced argument, and remove the impression of both sides of an argument being equally valid. Logically then, he's indicating that posts with "little to no likes" are indicators that the arguments with them are less valid, and unreasonable.
This is clear. This is obvious. But just in case it isn't. He reinforces this again in this thread.
Case in point. Apparently people's whose posts don't have likes have unreasonable opinions vs those with more likes.
No, the point is that someone like potato_hamster knows that he holds unreasonable opinions regardless of the existence or lack thereof of a like system. The existence of a like system would make that more apparent to people at large, so a like system poses a threat.
What you quoted was my response to the statement that a like system serves no other purpose than to distract from the content of conversations.
Talon, let me ask you this, how can a like system pose a threat to those with a supposedly unreasonable opinion if posts with fewer likes do not indicate, as I put it "that the views within should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users"?
The only real counter argument anyone could make here is that I might have incorrectly claimed that Rol states that posts with less likes are "discredited". It would have been more accurate to use the word "invalid" to describe the opinions Rol clearly expressed.
As I said, it's plainly obvious that Rol views the like system as a tool to use to indicate which posts are "reasonable" and which ones are not. As for whether this is a narrative he will use going forward, well, let's just see if Rol does what Rol does, or if Rol is willing to shape his behavior just to spite me.