>promoting group think Downvotes are particularly egregious here. An argument can be made that upvotes help to surface content of interest. That still doesn't

>promoting group think Downvotes are particularly egregious here. An argument can be made that upvotes help to surface content of interest. That still doesn't account for these accumulated top-right-corner scores, however, which have no value WRT enhancing discourse on any individual topic. In fact, they seem to actively encourage appeals to authority and other fallacies. But, what is the purpose of downvotes other to encourage groupthink and stifle discussion? Why are downvotes allowed to be used as stand-ins for expressing disagreement through actual refutation/discourse? Worse, this allows people to actively submarine (i.e. censor, to some degree) opinions with which they disagree. So people can care enough to submarine someone else's ideas, but they aren't required to explain why? How is this helpful? If someone is being disruptive or otherwise in violation of terms, there's always the flag option. But, downvotes punish people who meander too far from the group.