Hacker News Reader

The assumption here is that viewpoints have an equivalent value.

That assumption is probably the most toxic element contributing to the demise of intelligent public discourse and disagreement in the last decade.

I see no problem in refusing to argue with someone who is ranting against established science and refuses to look at the evidence or to reproduce the scientific results themselves.

View on HN

I think opinions can have equal value - in a roundabout way.

I.e. climate denialism is usually an expression of anti-establishmentarianism married with a fear of downward mobility.

You're assuming that about what I said.

And, in fact, someone who genuinely considers that all viewpoints have equivalent value should be more willing to consider different viewpoints, not less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com