I think people are confused about how to evaluate answers here. Should we upvote opinions we agree with on the object level as usual, or should we upvote opinions base on usefulness for the kind of research the OP is trying to conduct (i.e. not mainstream, but not too obscure/random/quirky either like 2+2=5)?
It seems like most have defaulted to the former interpretation while the most-upvoted comments are advocating the latter. Clear instructions is warranted here; the signal is all mixed up.
A close analogy would be a CNN segment bashing Trump posted on an Alt-Right site: the audience there might be confused as to whether they should dogpile on this post as a representative of the opposing tribe or to upvote the post as a heroic act of exposing the ugly nature of the opposing tribe (usually it’s resolved by an allegiance-declaring intro segment by the OP but isn’t always the case).
That is a dangerous opinion to hold. I believe there is value in all ideas, even if they are horrible to our own subjective views. Stuart has proposed something that may be ridiculous but ignoring it doesn’t provide any insight to why it was proposed. You could easily springboard off of it and propose ideas such as:
It could be possible, very intelligent people whom disagree with the norm trap themselves in dark areas while searching for answers.
Why is it a dangerous opinion to hold? I don’t know about others, but to me at least valuing freedom of expression has nothing to do with valuing the ideas being expressed.
Let us review ideas and make comments without bias. Expressing that some ideas are so bad they cannot be stated is dangerous because we are ignoring them in favour of a bias.
Agreed. There’s no value in spreading this opinion
What did you think was going to happen when you asked people for unpopular opinions?!
I think people are confused about how to evaluate answers here. Should we upvote opinions we agree with on the object level as usual, or should we upvote opinions base on usefulness for the kind of research the OP is trying to conduct (i.e. not mainstream, but not too obscure/random/quirky either like 2+2=5)?
It seems like most have defaulted to the former interpretation while the most-upvoted comments are advocating the latter. Clear instructions is warranted here; the signal is all mixed up.
A close analogy would be a CNN segment bashing Trump posted on an Alt-Right site: the audience there might be confused as to whether they should dogpile on this post as a representative of the opposing tribe or to upvote the post as a heroic act of exposing the ugly nature of the opposing tribe (usually it’s resolved by an allegiance-declaring intro segment by the OP but isn’t always the case).
That is a dangerous opinion to hold. I believe there is value in all ideas, even if they are horrible to our own subjective views. Stuart has proposed something that may be ridiculous but ignoring it doesn’t provide any insight to why it was proposed. You could easily springboard off of it and propose ideas such as:
It could be possible, very intelligent people whom disagree with the norm trap themselves in dark areas while searching for answers.
Why is it a dangerous opinion to hold? I don’t know about others, but to me at least valuing freedom of expression has nothing to do with valuing the ideas being expressed.
Let us review ideas and make comments without bias. Expressing that some ideas are so bad they cannot be stated is dangerous because we are ignoring them in favour of a bias.
They can be stated, nobody is contesting that. They can also be downvoted to hell, which is what I’m arguing for.