Agree. Although HN is better than most forums (hats off to the mods), you see many cases where a comment does add to the discussion but is clearly unpopular and gets neg rep'd because others did not agree with that point of view. That is really childish. As someone else pointed out, it's the edge cases that are interesting, and even if (especially if) I don't agree I want to see the opposing comments.

Not really, I post a lot of opinions that goes against what I thought were sacred cows on HN and usually I net positive votes from it.

Hah! Try going against the real sacred cows and watch what happens. :) I guarantee you I could easily shed 100 karma here in an hour, with civil language and politely advocating one of those forbidden opinions.

Let's see, I've said positive things about Microsoft, advocated "wall gardens", negative things about open source being the holy grail. defining a "successful" company as one that's profitable, negative things about Google and Android, there is life for developers outside of FAANG and west coast startups.

Which sacred cows did I miss?

You’ll find plenty in this trash fire: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864026

Look for the light gray posts.

Except for one or two, that were definitely against HN guidelines, you’re right. Most of the comments were downvoted because of opinions. It was used as a “I disagree” not as a “this is disrespectful, not adding to the conversation, not factually correct (4 == 3). I try to only downvote in those situations.

I will flag any submission that I see is over political even one that I agree with. Politics and religion topics rarely lead to intellectually stimulating discussion.

I think HN does a better job of moderating than most. The times I do see dissenting views getting the boot is when the person can't manage to air those views without being a shithead. If you're a solitary voice for a perspective it can be hard to find the balance of force and civility necessary to get your point across, but it is important.