The changes you propose are valid if we start with the premise that we need downvotes to begin with. But, I just don't believe they're helpful. Clearly, I'm in

The changes you propose are valid if we start with the premise that we need downvotes to begin with. But, I just don't believe they're helpful. Clearly, I'm in the minority here, but it's certainly not the first time. Anyway, given that flags are a mechanism for problematic content, you seem to be saying that some comments merit disagreement and discussion, while others should just be cast aside, though they are not "fully problematic" so as to warrant a flag. Still, they are not even deserving of "normal" comments or discussion? Why not? As a function of others expressing more rigorous disagreement? So, if I disagree then we should discuss. But, if I disagree strongly, then we should torpedo your comment altogether? These are earnest questions, because I don't get that approach in a place that is presumably aimed at thoughtful discussion. I've seen too many cases wherein someone expresses a thoughtful idea, but gets downvoted because people disagree. Look at the comment that started this little sub-thread. The commenter was downvoted without explanation and assumed it might've been because people thought his question stupid, as if that's completely cool.