The comments on this answer intrigue me. As of this writing, four people have upvoted a comment that defended an answer opening with "Basically it's creationist bushwah."
I don't understand this behavior with regards to this site. Is this site more than just inherent skepticism? Is the community here okay with identifying particular opposite communities and willing to cheer on callouts like the above quoted sentence?
I understand that creationists aren't known for their rationality; Christians can be openly hostile; and sure maybe the idea of a young moon really is creationist bushwah. But why does that deserve upvotes? At what point do we get to upvote answers that vent or angst in the way we want to vent and angst?
Beyond the comment I added in response, I wanted to be sure that I am understanding the purpose of this site. It seems that there is at least some contention to this behavior because of another comment noting a downvote simply because of the quoted sentence above. This implies that people are both upvoting and downvoting an answer for the content very first sentence.
This is why this meta question is here. There is an obvious differing of opinions on this subject; I think this is an extremely important thing to hash out while in beta. One sentence shouldn't be causing so much swingyness without a very, very good reason.
The question is this: Should our answers (and even questions, but mostly answers matter here) include Take Thats at particular groups? If not, at what point do we pull the plug? Is an (albeit justified) jab at creationists okay? How about a good joke?
Or am I making mountains of molehills and, really, this isn't causing any active harm, so to each their own?