I started out as a skeptical blogger many years ago, and when I started identifying as ace I moved into ace blogging. Thus, I’ve had many occasions to notice cultural differences in the respective blogging communities. One observation is that atheists/skeptics tend to give voice only to disagreement, while aces give voice only to agreement.
This does not mean that atheists/skeptics only ever disagree with each other, while aces only ever agree with each other. Rather, both agreement and disagreement are present, but the two groups have different ideas about what is worth expressing.
From the ace point of view, agreement amounts to encouragement and praise. Overall, there is a culture of friendship. There isn’t enough content so we want to support content creators. Criticism leads to discouragement and burnout, and tends to be employed only when necessary.
From the atheist/skeptic point of view, which is the one I tend to agree with, it’s not about feelings. It’s about ideas. If I simply agree with someone, I have no new ideas worth contributing. If I disagree with someone, I can say something that they did not think of.
As a blogger, I like when people disagree with me, and say things I did not. In fact, sometimes the disagreement is only nominal, with commenters saying things that I wanted to say, but could not. When I set out to write about a topic, there are ideas I leave out because it needs to flow, it needs to connect, it needs to be manageable. And I make bold generalizations with known exceptions–I want readers to point out the exceptions.
Of course, there’s something to be said about the difference between blogging that presents ideas, and blogging that presents experiences. I have never been very good at responding to people’s experiences, so I will refrain from giving advice on that subject.