I don’t know about the community but it could be against the intention of the community.
Someone might disagree with the group nature of the proposed commitment. They might be thinking that social commitment dilutes the commitment to the self that’s the key factor in taking control of an addiction.
It’s foolish to always assume anyone who disagrees with your methods is an asshole looking to cause pain. Sometimes people just don’t think what you’re doing is going to work, and they want it to work, so that’s why they oppose the plan.
I still couldn't do AA because even though it's not "religion" they still push the higher power stuff. That it's bigger than you and stuff. I never liked that because it takes the responsibility away from the person. To me, it's both. It can be a disease that you have trouble controlling while also, you have to take responsibility and learn to manage it. For me I just had to stop and avoid going to bars and stuff. But I was also a social drinker, never drank alone so staying away helped me a lot. Of course others may be different.
That makes me kinda sad actually, but the reality is, you could be right.
It's a pretty hard thing to wrestle with the idea of sobriety if someone can't imagine living their life that way. I get it. I'm a partier at heart who always wants to be out and about with people socializing, and the bar is the easiest place to gather other adults.
Hopefully if they are someone who wants to cut back, (and can do so safely), they take a peek in and see that it's not meant to be judgey. If someone checks in for a day or two and not the next, no one is coming after anyone/shaming anyone/questioning anyone. Just come back the next time you don't wanna drink. It's that low threat and chill.
I'm a verbose individual so I write novels, but most folks are legit just like "Not drinking today", and leave it at that. Whatever works, right?
It's also entirely possible that someone just really doesn't like that such content exists. Stop drinking is meant as a support group for alcoholics. But it's messaging sounds a bit like moral crusading against alcohol. And that sounds like the sort of thing someone scrolling through a front page would take objection to.
Honestly I think we need more voting options. Some that I would think would expand on up/down votes:
I like this
I don’t like this but the content is good (think news articles delivering good journalism on bad news)
I don’t like this and don’t want to see more (irrelevant content to you)
I disagree with this post
Content is irrelevant to the community
Content is spam/harmful/etc
That’s obviously not what they would be called, but those are the feelings the votes should convey. And those can be expressed in a simple upvote downvote front to end users as well.
I like this and I don’t like this but the content is good both deliver upvotes
I don’t like this and don’t want to see more doesn’t do either, but tells the algorithm that you don’t want to see that stuff (I don’t even know if any fediverse stuff ranks with an algorithm.
I disagree and content is not relevant both downvote, and content is harmful both downvotes and reports in one action
I meant to proactively remove your own post from circulation. Communities that are for things that the stereotypical Lemmy user doesn't agree with like the Christianity or Conservative one tend to get down voted by people outside the group even if the particular post is a good post for that community.
Was it posted in their own community or is it an advertisement for their community posted in another community?
If it was posted in the /stopdrinking community, that's a bit bizarre (though possibly being voted on by people who happen to see it while browsing everything at once). But if it was in any other community as an ad, it would make a lot of sense.