That's not my premise at all - what I am saying is that all articles written by everyone should have a healthy dose of dissent. Groupthink is an emergent problem of the online discourse.

So, let me reverse this argument for you. Do you think a young angry man comes across articles that validate his feelings about being spurned, an article that validates his belief that women don't regard him as good enough, that women are only interested in 'high value' men, if all his experiences are leading him this way then should his experience be exclusively validated in a space where everyone thinks the same?

And if not. Why not?

More importantly perhaps... Do you hope people like me are in that space making the alternative case? And if you can see why I might do it there, can you at least understand why I might do it here? My premise isn't that an article only has value if someone disagrees with it - my premise is that open disagreement is the only way to progress and any system which eschews disagreement is dangerously solipsistic.