[dollo_7]

I may belong to that silent majority. I have learnt a lot from the discussions here in HN and other sites, but I rarely participate on them. This post made me think about being a little more active because, sincerely, most of the times it is just laziness what prevents me from commenting anything.

In fact, this is my first comment here in HN. Little by little.

[veltas]

I will say that in my own experience, if you go against the zeitgeist on HN you can often get by as long as you're sensitive/respectful and intelligent on the issue. There are people who downvote things they disagree with, but I think most people on here downvote people who sound unconstructive or argumentative.

And at the end of the day, if you're respectful etc, who cares about being downvoted or having people argue back to you? Just take it on the chin.

[gernb]

you're supposed to downvote things you disagree with on HN. Here's Dang pointing to PG saying that downvoting for disagreeing is what you're supposed to do

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

[veltas]

I think it's healthy for the website that many people reserve downvotes for stuff that really 'deserves' it. But good to remember the mods position so you don't go around moaning about rule breaking voting. And how could you police that anyway?

[detaro]

"It's ok to do that" != "you are supposed to do that", and behavior of people varies accordingly.

[JohnFen]

I sometimes upvote replies to my own comments that I disagree with, because I think they make a good or interesting point (even if I disagree). Am I doing it wrong?

[spacechild1]

This sounds completely wrong to me...

[orangepurple]

Agree. Downvoting disagreeable people will eventually completely silence them with that logic. One has to be generally agreeable to maintain positive karma. Not sure if the side effect is worth it. There are a lot of amusing assholes out there with unpopular opinions. Opinions that are highly relevant to the topic at hand can be polarizing, but these will likely result in the poster having negative karma long term. pg and dang are simply wrong. It encourages a hive mind.

[Jensson]

That isn't true, I am very disagreeable and argumentative and post before I think, and still maintain positive karma without any issues.

Edit: It works since to downvote you need 500 karma, but everyone can upvote, so getting many upvotes is a lot easier than getting many downvotes.

[wellokthen2]

> That isn't true, I am very disagreeable and argumentative and post before I think, and still maintain positive karma without any issues.

Oh, I see. You personally haven't been downvoted into oblivion and/or had the door slammed in your face, so everything is cool then. 100% of the people who were censored must have been terrible people. Heil Dang, etc.

[xuhu]

But, do they carry equal weight ?

[the_omegist]

For me it's more that I think a comment should really "bring something" : a new perspective or a complement of information.

That's why there are places on the internet (like here) where, usually, I don't find the usual online fluff content.

[specialist]

Not commenting is a superior personal strategy.

I've always been the vocal outspoken critic. XML, EJB, annotations, aspects, ORMs, everything JavaScript, agile, ad nauseum. (My non-technical list is way longer.) It's always cost me.

I really wish I could tell young me to just smile and STFU.

[caprock]

Are you referring to situations like work, or do you feel that way about the online world as well?

[MexicanJoe]

> this is my first comment here in HN. Little by little.

Here have an upvote!