[JumpCrisscross]

It's an intellectual cop out. If you think you will be down voted, you should consider how you can rephrase what you're saying so you aren't. I'm not saying to change what you say, just how you say it.

"I'm going to get down voted for saying this" is the HN equivalent "I don't mean to be a jerk, but [says jerk things]".

[bshimmin]

I think at least part of the problem with saying that you expect to get downvoted is the inevitable meta-discussion that follows, with people citing the guidelines (wherein you will find the word "bait" to describe this, which to me seems unfair in many instances) and then others arguing the toss for the hundredth time.

Just to be a complete hypocrite: I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that - but hey, I'm British, and some of us were brought up to be polite.

[grzm]

I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that

Given the wide range of opinions expressed on HN, you can reasonably assume any opinion you express will be contrary to some of them. Expressing the expectation of downvotes is not apologizing in advance. "It may not be a popular opinion, but ", or "I'm sorry, but I've never understood..." are two alternatives. I'm sure there are better ones.

It's also important to consider whether it's worth expressing what you want to say if you also feel you need to apologize for it. Over half of pieter1976's initial comment is about the downvotes, including a Paul Graham reference justifying expressing a contrary opinion. The referenced essay specifically discusses this:

When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles.

...

The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want. And if you feel you have to say everything you think, it may inhibit you from thinking improper thoughts. I think it's better to follow the opposite policy. Draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech.

Is ignoring community guidelines worth expressing the opinion "I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by this community"?

[JumpCrisscross]

> I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that

Neither do I! There is a subtle but important difference between "pardon me if I'm missing something, but..." or "from the other comments on this thread it seems X is a widely-held view; I can't, however, seem to get my head around Y aspect of X" and advertising one's expectations of being down voted.

The former makes an effort to make sense of the views one disagrees with. That shows respect for the speaker. The latter dismisses it off the cuff.

If you're expressing a contrarian view, express it. If you want to apologise for it, do so politely. Better yet, incorporate why you think others will disagree into your response. Preemptively complaining, without offering any reasoning, is petulant.

[pieter1976]

Dutch not so different from British then.

[hx87]

Maybe I'm just American, but apologizing in advance is difficult to differentiate from preemptively and offensively playing the victim card.

[whositis]

That assumes people downvote only when a comment is not good or relevant.

They don't. The majority of people will downvote the comment because they disagree with it.

There is no way to disagree with the groupthink, without expecting to be downvoted.

[soundwave106]

Upvoted you, because the people who downvoted you unfortunately proved your point. :(

I personally would love it if downvotes required an explanation. Such would be a great way to separate the "your comment was out of line for legitimate reason" type of downvote vs. the "I'm downvoting you because you're wrong and I'm not even going to say why" type of downvote.

You can learn something from the former type of downvote; the later sort of downvote is completely useless.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sort of true. You can also ask questions, use less invective, and start by validating the post's view and then expand on it.

It comes down to, its more effective to lead a conversation than to just dispute and disagree. Its true on the internet; its true in person.

[chrishacken]

It's ironic that your comment was downvoted; because everything you said is exactly why it was. It's not that your idea is a bad theory or negative; people downvoted it because they didn't agree with it.

[hx87]

> There is no way to disagree with the groupthink, without expecting to be downvoted.

Then expect to be downvoted without explicitly posting that expectation. Nothing good will come of it.

[whositis]

Why? It's just another way of saying "I realise fully that this is not a popular opinion amongst most users of this website"

[grzm]

At the end of the day, it's against site guidelines:

Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You may not agree with it (which is fine), but it's largely accepted by the community.

[Gargoyle]

Changing how you say something often won't avoid the downvotes. If it's something a lot of people don't agree with, you'll get downvoted anyway.

The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.