When even a very small number of downvotes here can result in a comment's text being coloured in a way that makes it harder to read, or even nearly impossible to read in extreme cases, I think it's reasonable to equate downvoting with censorship.

Censorship doesn't require content to be completely hidden or blocked; even just partially obscuring the content in some way is still censorship.

I disagree that this is equivalent to censorship, but it sure sounds like a really good incentive to make more convincing comments than “Then how do you explain this single counterexample? Checkmate, Rustaceans.”

Plenty of reasonable disagreement happens here without getting downvoted into obscurity. Substantive points are generally upvoted even when they’re controversial opinions. So I don’t feel too upset when borderline-trolling or bad-faith arguments get hidden by consensus.

Ironic counterexample: It looks like you may have gotten downvoted despite having a fundamentally reasonable perspective.

I wouldn't call it "censorship", but sure, let's say it is.

There's a reason why "this is the exception that proves the rule" is a common saying. Picking out one exceptional example of something, and using that to argue against a general point, is at best lazy, and at worst actively dishonest. I'm fine with those kinds of comments being "censored". They -- and the comments calling people out for doing this -- are boring and don't further discussion.

I wouldn't call it "censorship", but sure, let's say it is.

There's a reason why "this is the exception that proves the rule" is a common saying. Picking out one exceptional example of something, and using that to argue against a general point, is at best lazy, and at worst actively dishonest. I'm fine with those kinds of comments being "censored". They -- and their replies that call people out for doing this -- are boring and don't further discussion.