I don't think there are cliques either.
There are people with whom I often agree, but I'm not just agreeing with them because I like them - I'm agreeing with them because I agree with their point.
There are people with whom I often disagree. But if they said something that I agreed with then I would say so too.
I think most people on here are capable of making their own decisions, rather than nodding along with what someone says 'just' to be in the majority.
The thing is, often the debates on here are pretty black and white. You think this OR you think that. E.g., you think those who smoke while pregnant are selfish/ terrible, OR you think they need help/ support. I'm simplifying it, but many arguments seem to polarise people. I can see that if your view was in the minority you may feel ganged up on - but that doesn't mean you really are. Just that your view is in the minority.
There are also a lot of people on here who regularly comment that they have no opinion on a circumstance without knowing the background. That's fine, but it doesn't always contribute to a debate. I think a lot of the thread starters on here aren't so much about a specific situation, but are more of a 'what if' type thing. E.g., the recent thread about a 5yr old not being allowed on play apparatus. Sure, no one knows the back story, but 'what if' a 5yr just wasn't allowed to play because the parents didn't want her to. Then what?
What I'm getting at is that I think some people approach threads as very literal ("We don't know/ there might be a medical condition") - and then view it as unfair judgment when others approach them more generally ("A 5 yr old should be allowed to play").
Hope I'm making sense. Think I need another cup of tea before I have a decent shot at coherence...