[Diogenes]

"Simply expressing an opinion is noise in a conversation often boils down to noise, and opinions on their own won't feed the starving mind: the meat of the argument lies in explaining opinions." - willarson

To play devil's advocate here (because I happen to agree with your comment on the whole), the argument could be made that a downvote (without attribution or explanation) is just this sort of noise.

[SwellJoe]

Very low amplitude noise. I'd rather folks downvote than spout nonsense just to say something in opposition.

[DanielBMarkham]

If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to downvote, right? What is the argument here, I don't want other people to see it but I can't say why?

[SwellJoe]

If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to downvote, right?

If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to post a comment, right?

The question isn't, "Should someone be allowed to be stupid." It's "Should we give them an outlet for their disagreement that causes less disruption to the conversation?"

We can't solve stupidity. But, we can make it have less impact. I don't know that downvotes help prevent stupidity, or help reduce the impact of stupidity...but I think it does.

Of course, you're assuming that the post being downvoted or commented on has merit by virtue of someone having taken time to write it. I'm assuming that everybody (including me) says stupid stuff all the time, and a downvote is a low-friction, low-amplitude means of saying "I think this is stupid". It doesn't censor anyone, and it doesn't prevent people from having a discourse with that person if they think it's worth their time.

That's all I'm saying. (Though I could be having a stupid moment right now.)