Dissenting used in a sentence

Dissenting in a sentence as an adjective

Let's have some dissenting opinion here. not all kids are equal.

If you create something and there were dissenting opinions, would you not like to hear them? Do you only want "Yes Men" in your entourage?

He was hellbanned for voicing a dissenting opinion in a thread about sexism.

No answers but donwvotes to any dissenting comment.

I'm going to cast a dissenting vote from the other comments here and say yes. The golden age of my personal programming experiences was around 1993, during high school.

It's a very ugly sledgehammer which is routinely used to censor dissenting voices. Victims of it have no real recourse even if they do notice they've been censored.

You'd prefer no dissenting articles rather than a handful? Anyway, even if Apple were broadly being lauded for it now, that would be expected.

As a top-voted dissenting opinion on Dave's piece yesterday, I find myself compelled to chime in. > I honestly don't care what the HN trolls, and the people who upvote them, supposedly "think" about me.

How easy would it have been to supress dissenting political opinion? The NSA database is a time bomb of political abuse just waiting to explode.

The responsibility is entirely with the reader to be mature enough to hear a dissenting opinion.

The voting numbers really help me understand what people are thinking: how strong the consensus is, how much support there is for dissenting opinions. Without that data, at least for me the value of the discussion here is significantly reduced.

>That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working. Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.

That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working. I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support.

This is especially true if dissenting opinion is filtered before it gets handed to the President etc. I apologize if the following sounds a little leftist.

Truly repressive regimes are out there, and without foreign interference and investment people might not have any access to dissenting views. As an example, look at the recent article from HN about Romania's brutal dictatorship.

The only hope is in the increased connectivity of the Internet, access to information, and ability to share dissenting views. As this is taken away, to preserve Hollywood profits, and in the name of "security", we run further and further off the cliff.

It can severely impede the democratic process because people are afraid to hold dissenting opinions--not due to legal ramifications, but social ones.

This second interpretation is what the majority opinion espouses, and the dissenting opinion aligns with the first. This may be unsatisfactory for people concerned with software or e-book licenses, but Omega v.

Russia has been on a media-blocking spree, shutting down 'dissenting opinions,' ever since the Ukraine conflict started. With CloudFlare they're running into the problem that their infrastructure can't selectively block specific CloudFlare sites and that blocking all of CloudFlare would cause far too much of an outcry.

The dissenting comments and downvotes you've received contain valuable information: others' experience really, honestly, truly differs from your blanket claims.

There are certainly dissenting voices but Hacker News has proven itself time and time again to be unable to examine the issue of gender, or more tellingly, unwilling to. These posts disappearing is not a one-off, there have been numerous instances of people flagging 'difficult' posts on HN, so that we can all continue arguing about semi-colons.

It's a policy that kind of sneaks up on institutions as big as the US Govt: discourage interesting, dissenting behavior; encourage boring, mainstream behavior. It doesn't require passing a law - it's an emergent behavior that only requires extra scrutiny of behavior that is outside the experience of the enforcer.

The argument willfully ignores the many voices that are silenced in the name of shutting up trolls: activists living under authoritarian regimes, whistleblowers, victims of violence, abuse, and harassment, and anyone with an unpopular or dissenting point of view that can legitimately expect to be imprisoned, beat-up, or harassed for speaking out. Can someone explain the rationale of placing civility ahead of the above consequences?