It might also be proper to get downvotes for pointing out without an explanation something that clearly wouldn’t be happening. In any case, the analogy between this downvoting and the hypothetical coverup is unconvincing.
Not sure if I personally agree with the downvoting, some anti-echo-chamber injunctions might be good to uphold even in the face of a bounded amount of very strange claims. But maybe only those that come with some sort of explanation.
It might also be proper to get downvotes for pointing out without an explanation something that clearly wouldn’t be happening. In any case, the analogy between this downvoting and the hypothetical coverup is unconvincing.
Not sure if I personally agree with the downvoting, some anti-echo-chamber injunctions might be good to uphold even in the face of a bounded amount of very strange claims. But maybe only those that come with some sort of explanation.
Why ?
“Clearly” and “it seems” are both the same, bad, argument. They both pass off a subjective assement as a fact