Honestly, I think this is one downside to the Reddit model sometimes -- though of course I don't have a better one to suggest. If you take an absolutist view, then everyone on that side of things will upvote you because you're on their team. And for some issues you get a lot of people on that team, and relatively few on the other team, so you get a lot of upvotes for being on the right team and a lot of downvotes for being on the wrong team.

But what if you're not on either team? What if you offer an opinion that is more nuanced, more reflective of the complexities of human life? Well, you're not going to get anyone's upvotes, because you're not fully on their team -- but will get at least some downvotes, because you're just enough on the other team to be worth downvoting.

Of course, this doesn't apply all the time -- there are plenty of issues where people are able to have nuanced discussions. But there are also plenty of issues where you more or less have to decide which team you're on, and get on board 100% -- which is great for an echo chamber, but not great for a conversation.