I know we are not supposed to talk about karma (and therefore a downvote ironically may be appropriate on this comment), but I agree vote behaviour on HN lately shows a still-small but growing tendency toward suppressive downvoting.

This seems to happen generally for two reasons: Even a neutral comment is evaluated for what stance it most closely aligns with, and then downvoted to suppress the opposing view just in case. Or alternatively, a comment that appears low-key combative (but really isn't directly so) gets downvoted in an attempt to ensure harmony.

Both moves to me have "culture war vibes", and come from either adopting those habits or feeling very tired from strife.

I think it's increasingly easy to fall into either bracket, but let's not do that on HN! If a comment is generally polite enough, the only bar to meet is adding new information or new thought into a conversation. None of us come here to be pandered to, and getting challenged by viewpoints that force you to consider the corner cases of your own views is half the fun.

This is why I have enjoyed not having downvote powers yet. It's made me check why I downvote things - and re-evaluate what I upvote. I've found myself upvoting things I don't really agree with but make interesting points that I find myself dialoguing with. Perhaps this is why I mostly lurk

Not to call you out for your post but I think this is a result of the 'just asking questions' culture we live in where asking questions online has been weaponized/agenda driven. Even the person asking the question admits their question could be interpreted this way first thing: "and I don't mean this combatively)" and even their caveat these days is sadly easily interpreted as 'I'm just asking questions'. Just look at how the start of my first sentence changes the tone.

The question asker doesn't know the work, doesn't respond to what OP said, but instead challenges OP about methodology, and leads with 'I know this question can seem combative'. Then falls to 'do you think, in your heart of hearts'... how does that question and asking for assessment align with the 'I'm all about methodology' stance of the question asker? It sounds a like a 'core values' assessment/assignment not a 'the room for error in this study' assessment is being asked for. The question on the whole:

'I know this can sound combative but I'm just asking questions. Given other things have been bad and knowing nothing of this being talked about, but pointing out it's probably completely wrong (based on nothing but X other thing is wrong).... really, in your heart, do you believe you are coming from integrity?'

That sounds toxic AF.

Personally as a relative newcomer here it seems like there is a lot of this 'just asking questions' on HN.

Edit: Throttled. I pointed out how I saw the post could be (mis)interpreted. Yeah, that necessitates me replaying it back how it could be (mis)interpreted. That is valid when my point is about... how posts could be (mis)interpreted resulting in a poorer quality of discussion. Sorry if you didn't understand the point I was trying to get across. I didn't say the interpretation was valid, I said here is how posts like the one the person I responded to referenced can derail discussion in an era of 'just asking questions'. Zero disingenuousness nor unconstructive on my part and it's wild you can't see that. My post was about better quality discussion using the message the person I responded to used. Yours is about calling me specifically out. Which is more 'constructive'?

> […] 'just asking questions' […]

That's not the case here. Non-replicable results from studies in the social sciences are a very real, very frequent phenomenon, and the first question to ask when seeing a claim about a significant effect should be "Has this been replicated?". Being sceptical (without being overly negative or critical) is not "toxic" as you call it, instead it protects us all from becoming trapped in our bubble.

> 'I know this can sound combative but I'm just asking questions. Given other things have been bad and knowing nothing of this being talked about, but pointing out it's probably completely wrong (based on nothing but X other thing is wrong).... really, in your heart, do you believe you are coming from integrity?'

> That sounds toxic AF.

You had to rephrase PeterHolzwarth's post and put word in their mouths to make it sound "toxic AF". That's a disingenuous and unconstructive thing to do in a discussion.

The vast majority of people have their conclusions first and seek a prestigious stamp of approval for it second. Triply especially if it is in any way socially, culturally, politically relevant. That's what you have to keep in mind first and foremost.

People are very sensitive to sensing politically threatening undertones in any take. If you truly aren't sure why: it's probably related to certain funding decisions and certain discourse around certain academic fields.