[shubhamjain]

> I'm interested in diversity of opinions, not echo chambers, and people who can combine having their own unique point of view that doesn't follow the crowd, as well as still pleasing the crowd a lot of the time are very interesting to me right now.

I disagree. It's an overused defence: voicing idiotic opinions is "having a unique point of view"; being rude and domineering is "having an outspoken and blunt demeanour". Your opinions should stand on facts, not your I-don't-give-a-shit attitude. The difference should come from your interpretation of them. Respecting so-called controversial figures leads only to a downward spiral where we encourage bad behaviour.

Hacker news, in my experience, respects different opinions if they carry any weight. A thread on Uber has both who attack and defend Travis Kalanick. Controversial opinions, unfortunately, often means saying groundless shit and later, defending them with "I-am-a-contrarian" attitude.

[CodeWriter23]

Only problem with relying on "truth", at least when it comes to Science, studies often can't be reliably reproduced, former editors of prestigious medical journals say half of what they publish is pure rubbish, the NEJM gave up trying to hire independent reviewers of their papers in 1991 because they couldn't find any scientists who weren't tainted by pharma funding. I'm all for rigorous science, it's just that we have too many practitioners these days motivated by money rather than the pursuit of unbiased truth, and in their process, pervert science into nothing more than public relations.

You need look no further than the largest study of bee populations published this week in Nature to see what I'm talking about. It concludes Roundup is killing the bees, and Bayer comes out and calls the study "inconclusive" because it defies the tobacco science they previously bought and paid for.

And I just know someone is going to post a link from Snopes, confirming Bayer's version of the truth, without investigating any of the underlying science, but will accept Snopes' version of the truth as the actual truth. Because Snopes. Let's not even acknowledge nobody at Snopes has any journalistic nor investigative credentials.

[babyrainbow]

Very interested to see some sources for these things you mention in first para. Do you have them handy?

[19eightyfour]

It's a nice community-supporting sentiment but I think the idea that such a powerful tool as a down vote is only used for noble purposes, rather than to condemn and silence dissent or as an "easy out" substitute instead of a comment for something one disagrees with, is a fiction. Am I saying all downvotes are tools of censorship and punishment of diversity? No. But I feel down votes are powerful tools, and to me the idea that they are only used for good, while noble and community supporting, is naive.

So from the point of view that considers down votes something of a problem, what solution do I see? Nothing really conclusive. I think a step in the right direction is if downvotes only affected the comment they pertained to, and not overall reputation -- then I'd feel a lot more free.

[DanBC]

> as an "easy out" substitute instead of a comment for something one disagrees with,

That's a good thing. I don't want to read the same tiresome spats everyday. I would far rather some people just downvoted comments and moved on.

[19eightyfour]

Sure.....but then I think everyone ought to be able to down vote. Or only the mods. If it's a tool, it's either a tool for all, or a tool only wielded by the ones who define community standards, work to enforce them and act basically objectively in line with those principles anyway.

If it's not that objective tool, then it's a tool for everyone to wield subjectively. That's what I'd prefer.

I know others may feel differently. This is how I feel about it.

[nailer]

> Your opinions should stand on facts, not your I-don't-give-a-shit attitude.

I agree yet look at this completely differently: your opinions should stand on facts, not how you feel about those facts or the tone of the person stating them.

[honestoHeminway]

Darwinism, a very objective result - was considered a insult by many for years and even brought to court. Yes, you can defend that civil- but what if your oppossition considers even civil disagreeing as a insult?

Your opinion implies rationality on the side of society and a lot of other unspoken pre-condition to discurs, which never make it to reality.