I upvoted him because it's difficult to read what he wrote (and I routinely upvote grey comments). HN should decide whether a downvote means ‘I disagree’ or ‘this isn't worth reading’ — ‘I disagree therefore this isn't worth reading’ is incompatible with reasoned discussion.
It's one thing to have a different opinion - I often upvote people with whom I have a different opinion.
It's entirely another to make a claim about facts which is not supported - in this case by evidence that is not controversial.
It's simply not so that black people commit crimes in proportion with the representation in the criminal justice system. In fact, if poverty and geography are controlled for, ethnicity and race seem to be non-determiners of criminality.
"Disagreeing" on facts is not compatible with reasoned discussion too, especially when one couches their opinion in such clearly unreasoned ways such as "go ahead and downvote me." This person knows that they're trolling, and does it anyway.
> I upvoted him because it's difficult to read what he wrote
Does this mean that you upvote greytext comments because it makes the text too difficult to read, and you find that upvoting such a comment not infrequently makes it easier for you to read it?
If yes, then you might be pleased to know that you can solve the contrast issue by selecting the text with your mouse or whatever other pointing device you use.
Unfortunately, Hacker News has decided, and considers the censorship of comments for any reason at all (including no particular reason) to be not only compatible with, but vital to, reasoned discussion.
If you prefer to make your own decisions about what comments are worth reading, and use Firefox, here[0] is a userscript that will unfade them.
