Almost completely disagree. There are a few sacred cows here (I won't mention them by name, though the do exist), but I have earned my rep by posting mostly co

Almost completely disagree. There are a few sacred cows here (I won't mention them by name, though the do exist), but I have earned my rep by posting mostly contrarian opinions, and I almost always have quite a few net upvotes - sometimes dozens. It's not too difficult: First, I cite facts that back up my claims from sources whose narratives would typically go against my argument. I cite the New York Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic, NPR, CNN, etc.; I only rarely cite Fox News, and never cite anything to the right of Fox. Second, I really internalize the rules about good faith, not attacking the weakest form of an argument, not cross-examining, etc. Sometimes I have a draft that has my emotions, and I'll edit it to make it more rational before posting. Third, I ask open-ended questions to allow myself to be wrong in the mind of other commenters. Instead of just asserting that some of my ultra-contrarian opinions are the only way anyone can see an issue, I may propose a question. By doing that, I have at times seen some excluded middle I hadn't considered, and my opinion becomes more nuanced. Fourth, I often will begin replying and then delete my reply because I know it won't add anything. This is the hardest one to do, but sometimes it's just the way you have to go. Some differences are merely tastes and preferences, and I'm not going to change the dominant tastes and preferences of the Valley on HN. I can only point out some of the consequences. The content moderation rules and system here have encouraged me to write better and more clearly about my contrarian opinions, and have made me more persuasive. HN can be a crap-show at times, but in my experience, it's often some of the best commentary on the Internet.