Nearly zero content.

>Nearly zero content

>They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian.

Seems like content to me.

It was a two line "me too" when I posted that reply.

No it wasn't, that full sentence that was quoted had been there since before the first edit.

You may not like what was said, but please do not engage in dishonesty.

I hope the irony of replying with "nearly zero content" isn't lost on on-lookers.

A handful of HN users with >= 500 karma didn't like either:

- The fact that I don't embrace the concept of trigger warnings.

- The fact that I responded in agreement to another comment.

- The fact that I suggested the warning could have been placed in response to a fear of retaliation.

- Me. Just, in general.

- All of the above.

But since none of the downvoters had enough gumption to actually say what they didn't like about my comment, we'll never know. :)

My pet theory for what motivates these squads of downvoters is a mix of laziness and cowardice.

You should have put a trigger warning - "Point of view disagreeing with the majority media narrative - could cause compulsive downvoting behaviour".

;).

Heh. I don't really think I'm even disagreeing with the majority media narrative here. I do think trigger warnings can be taken to ridiculous extremes (e.g. imagine a trigger warning every 30 seconds of a horror film) and, as a result, am not fond of them as an idea.