The difference of discussing topics on the internet and in person is very stark. The average person is much more chill than the average commenter, even within the same general demographic or interest/hobby.
Now, of course I'm not saying we should have a thousand generic comments along the lines of "yeah, I guess that's pretty neat" or "oh well, that's a bummer; now onto regular daily life things..." Just that maybe it helps to consciously recognize this, though perhaps the perception can't be overridden.
And of course the negativity can masquerade as expertise. If the monkeys next to me (commenters) confidently challenge the isolated monkey's (OP) position, maybe we can defeat him and take his resources and status.
The final form of this stuff is subreddits. At least HN forces everyone onto a single front page, there are no subHNs. Which balances things a bit and prevents extreme bubbles.
But I never expected that this would also link back to my tendency to skip an article and just stick to what the top comments of a section have, HN or Reddit.
Because when you were still swinging from the trees a some generations back that was a survival trait.
At the same time, I have no issue disagreeing with whatever is the popular stance, there’s almost some catharsis in just speaking the truth along the lines of “What you say might be true in your circumstances and culture, but software isn’t built like that here.”
Regardless, I’d say that there’s nothing wrong with finding likeminded peers either, for example if everyone around you views something like SOLID and DRY as dogma and you think there must be a better, more nuanced way.
Either that, or everyone likes a good tl;dr summary.
I often click on the HN comments before reading the article because the article I very often nothing more than the headline and I'm more interested in the discussion.
Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.