If someone takes the time to write a response to a post, I will read the response. I've even been known to go back and correct posts when someone has pointed out a genuine error. If someone hits "like" I'll assume that they agree with the gist of whatever I posted - which is nice, but I can live without it. If someone hits "disagree" without taking the time to explain why then I just ignore it - if I wanted to start a poll I'd have posted a poll.
...and I have no idea whether the "angry" emoji is supposed to mean "you make me angry", "I share your anger" or "I need anger management classes", so I usually just assume the latter.
You solved this yourself:
...which, indeed, is the way to avoid "me too" posts without a disagree option. The "like" button is all that is needed to make "me too" posts unnecessary.
I guess the real answer is for some one to look at a few threads, count how many "likes" and "disagrees" the original post receives vs. how many unhelpful posts there are repeating the same points and counter-points. My gut impression is that "like" is well used and might well be mopping up the "me toos", but that there aren't enough "disagrees" to account for a significant reduction in the number of low-quality posts.
If it is really a troll then report it and ignore it. Hitting "disagree" just feeds the troll* half a billygoat rather than a whole billygoat. Otherwise, it is likely that the "outrageous" bit is either a matter of opinion or a factual mistake, and hitting disagree does nothing to explain your opinion or present the correct facts.
* Self-pedantry: The term "troll/trolling" for
making deliberately provocative posts to discussion groups actually derives from
a fishing term for training bait in the water rather than mythical bridge-dwelling caprivores - but as the
jargon file notes, mixing the metaphors (and not feeding trolls) works well...
OK, so its been established that you *can* post political responses in the "political news" section. Elsewhere on the site, though - hitting "disagree" on political grounds (which will often be obvious in context) seems to me like it's breaking the
spirit of the rules, even if it's unenforceable by the mods. Providing an end-run around forum rules doesn't seem to be a good argument in favour of the "disagree" button.
Then one more "disagree" still adds nothing to the discussion.
These are
discussions, not polls (there's a "poll" option if that's what you want). Nobody "wins" a thread. If you don't have time to write a post before someone else has made your point for you, you're not losing your voice (and you're free to "like" the points you agree with).
There's a difference between "only wants to see positive affirmations" and "only wants to see
reasoned responses". Posting "I disagree" or "You're wrong" without justification is a lazy response which contributes nothing to the discussion, and having a "disagree" emoji just provides an even lazier way of doing that.
If you disagree with a post, either find time to make a counter-point or "like" someone who has already done so. Even if someone posts "2+2=5" it only takes a minute to post "•• + •• = ••••".