I do try to explain downvotes when requested, so here we go: I'm downvoting you for trotting out the tired old "anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy of free speech" silliness.

I'm curious what you think downvotes should legitimately be used for, if not to criticize patently ridiculous statements (like "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect, if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL").

As a side note, are you implying that Redditors don't downvote when they disagree or feel insulted? Because wow. Have you been to Reddit?

    I do try to explain downvotes when requested, so here we go:
    I'm downvoting you for trotting out the tired old "anyone
    who disagrees with me is an enemy of free speech" silliness.

I think you misread me.

I never said, nor implicated nor thought that disagreeing is incompatible with free speech; quite the opposite.

I was talking about people abusing downvoting to express disagreement or feeling insulted.

Maybe you should read more carefully before presuming others wrote something silly.

    I'm curious what you think downvotes should legitimately
    be used for, if not to criticize patently ridiculous statements
    (like "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect,
    if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL").

I have no finished list of things which downvotes should be used for.

However, trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion are part of that list.

Patently ridiculous statements can be downvoted, but I suggest to error on the side of doubt when judging whether it's patently or not. Also, if the statement in question was serious, a comment why it's ridiculous is appropriate.

Disagreement is definitely not part of that list. Because it blocks controversial discussion even when they are serious and rational.

    As a side note, are you implying that Redditors don't downvote
    when they disagree or feel insulted? Because wow. Have you been to Reddit?

I think you misunderstood again.

On reddit exactly what you described happens all the time, and HN should be different in this point.

> "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect, if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL"

I'm a bit confused as to how you got this from my original comment; surely using a chosen name rather than an externally imposed epithet or handle is a sign of respect, or at least not disrespect?

I think there's a miscommunication about the liberal thing. I meant it in terms of classical liberalism (a prizing of individual rights over other concerns, for instance, is a central tenet of this; it doesn't mesh well with most varieties of socialism), not in the USA-specific sense of "liberals" vs "conservatives".

Yeah wow, folks hated that post. Some comments would have been nice.

See? Now it hit my comment as well.

These down-votes of constructive comments without constructive criticism are to press one into alignment. I consider that harmful for critical and controversial thought.