HN has a diverse set of viewpoints. For any assertion one might make, there will be someone with the opposite viewpoint.

In addition to out-and-out opposition or agreement that sounds vaguely oppositional, a comment might call for a pedantic annotation, a tangential aside or book recommendation.

Don’t forget the unconstructive meta-analysis.

This is a wonderful example

Okay, glad you made it impossible to write a comment that disagrees with yours.

You know what they say about things that aren't falsifiable, they're definitely correct!!

> You know what they say about things that aren't falsifiable, they're definitely correct!!

Ah, the ol' Hitchens's movie night: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with popcorn".

That Hitchens quote is pithy and snow-clonable but demonstrated an impoverished and static epistemology. It is circular and self-falsifying by respectively assuming the existence of “evidence” independent of the assertion’s observation bias and not obeying its own assertion.

That's to be expected. A typical conversation starts with someone taking a high-dimensional problem, projecting it to their favorite dimension, and saying "the solution is obviously on my side on the number line". Of course you'll get multiple "contrarian" replies ranging from "hey, what about my preferred dimension" to "you know the problem has more than one of them?".