>for posting well-written, thought-out responses which other people disagreed with
I could write a well-written, thought-out argument in favor of segregating blacks. I'm not suspicious of you - I'm just saying, maybe you're making too much assumption about how valuable your writing is, since you've only used "well written" and "thought out" as evidence.
>just for playing Devil's Advocate
Do you announce that that's what you're doing? Do you think there is such thing as a comment that deserves downvotes, but that wouldn't if it was written the same word for word with the exception of being announced as a thought exercise? (Not rhetorical - I suspect my personal answer is yes).
>within a minute
A minute is a long time.
> They are coddled and react negatively to things they disagree with
This is a broad and specific accusation to level at people just because they downvoted you. It's also a very convenient way to convince oneself that one is "the better person".
Just image if I were given two feedback levers instead:
- This comment adds to the discussion/This comment does not add significantly to the discussion
- Agree/Disagree
It's fine as comments ago, until:
> Downvote brigade has arrived, I love receiving downvotes for playing devil's advocate; respond to me if you're disagreeing, don't downvote and bury what you dislike.
Looking further, the next example is similar, ending with:
> Here on HN, we have our own orthodoxy, too. Those who work with Rust find safe haven for their views, and the downvote brigade on HN will descend if you even mention the word Trump.
Which seems to have been inspired by the next after that, which is an iffy comment in any case, but once again:
> Edit: Apparently someone downvoted this comment within 60 seconds...this seems contrary to HN's ethos. I asked a general question with a specific example; is someone triggered by the words "Donald Trump"? This is pushing a legitimate question about FB's effect on the world down into the gray...is that a good thing?
And so on:
> Edit: Someone want to comment and explain why this is downvoted to -2?
I liberally downvote low-effort, mean, and, if I'm not going to take the time to respond, objectively wrong posts.
More than any of those, though, I downvote people who complain about being downvoted. You lost some Internet points. Who cares?
Word of advice, WhompingWindows: Stop. You're always going to see votes in both directions, but being net negative is usually transient. In your case the downvotes are sticking most likely because you're calling attention to them.
I don't upvote things I agree with, I upvote unique contributions to discussion that arent the platitudes spread everywhere else, even ones I disagree with.
Let's reset: I think the downvote should be used for low-effort, non-contributive comments like "lol" and "^this". Do you disagree on that point?
Next, I'll admit to self-puffery, no doubt my ideas are not as clever as I imagined when I typed them. However, I don't believe in downvoting merely based on philosophical disagreement. If I'm seen to "downvote brigade" against that practice, so be it, but I believe and will publicly state that downvotes shouldn't bury something that goes against HN/tech/societal orthodoxy. This is how hive-minds and pile-ons form; diversity of thought and opinion is healthy, and challenging one's own assumptions is illuminating. Do we want a community where a differing voice is grayed out and bottomed out within minutes?
Why do I care and fight for broader discourse? IMO, Social media can tend to reduce complex issues to mere scores based on camp-size, and I am fighting to re-complexify our dialogue. Let's upvote towards solid discussion and relish complexity and diversity of thought.