Let me first say, I strongly endorse Slate Star Codex's take on the value of ideas. It's important to get good ideas, and typically much less important to have e.g. a band-pass on those ideas, rejecting all but the mediocre and probably true-ish ones. And yet modern judgmental culture seems to invert this value judgment – having fringe beliefs doesn't just add to your resume, making you someone who is occasionally wrong (a very human trait), but it is seen as shameful or embarrassing. Oh, you thought that was a good or interesting idea? Wow.

There's a reason why I publish something every day, or try to. There's a pure entropy machine at the heart of this site, an engine spitting out ideas, some of which don't last much past my posting of them. Hopefully they are useful or weird or true, but getting all three is a ridiculous standard that would inhibit a tremendous volume of intellectual gristle we should all be chewing through.  

Honestly, an explicit model like that might help me generate ideas for this site. Have an opinion about anything. Parking spaces, and whether they should be easy or hard to find. Come to think of it, having spoken to people at a parking-space-finding startup, I do actually have those opinions.

But if you're trying to defend against people shaming you, this format has a real cost. It's too easy to take the worst idea and pretend it is emblematic of all your thinking – when it's really an emblem of your desire to publish something and those words making a grammatical sentence.

Now, I don't mean to brag, but it's possible I have actual ideas in those (hopefully) grammatical sentences, which means it would be easy to conjure divisiveness between me and just about any other person who also has ideas. We'll disagree about something, or at least seem to. I can't imagine the staggering coincidence of constant agreement.

So is it better to just get along, keep your head down, minimize the ideas you spread to avoid the possibility of anyone disagreeing, ever?

Probably? But it would be selfish. There's a social cost to people behaving that way. We should have more Newtons, getting a few things right and tons of stuff wrong. Building incentives to destroy those people is bad, and following those incentives is cowardly. Speak your mind. I'm sure we can figure out if it's worth listening, and I'll have the humility and forgiveness to ignore even the most brutally flawed mistakes as markers of character instead of markers of scholarship.