I'm just trying to warn about the pitfalls of monocausal explanations for complex issues..
You should try to ask the OP the same question..
But, to be fair, the title of the submission to HN has been changed, to something a lot less of clickbait.
Maybe I would not have engaged otherwise, actually. Makes you think..
But still, downvotes = disagreement, I thought HN would be better than that.
Apparently, I was wrong.
Nope, downvotes can be for many reasons, disagreement is not required to downvote. (I often downvote comments that I agree with and find non-useful in context, and upvote comments I disagree with but which contribute to productive discussion.)
I agree in theory, but I would like to hear some justification why other comments, even if unrelated, get downvoted as well then.
I don't know, maybe you should have a talk with some post-structuralists, or with some other folks who seem to believe that xyz is a "social construct"..
downvotes can also be for perceiving questions as posed in bad faith, non-sequiturs, being reductive, rude comments, etc.
But I was not asking in bad faith, it is beyond me why anyone would even want to do that.
Okay, this is the Internet, I know, and you cannot tell from across the screen. That old drama.
But still, I don't agree that an uncharitable interpretation should be the standard on HN that everyone just downright assumes..