3 ms·

I actually personally agree but I thought there was a rule, written or unwritten, to keep religion out of HN. Would it be better if I said something like "keep

I actually personally agree but I thought there was a rule, written or unwritten, to keep religion out of HN. Would it be better if I said something like "keep attacks on religion out of HN"?

humanrebar 10y ago
Something along those lines, sure. I'm actually fine with people civilly criticizing religion, though. It's the stereotyping that really sticks out to me. It would be flagged or downvoted (justifiably!) if someone called women irrational or told homosexuals that their lifestyles should be kept private. I'm convinced that the double standard here just doesn't register for most of the HN community, and almost all the English speaking world besides. I said something to raise awareness of the problem.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  It's the stereotyping that really sticks out to me. It would be flagged or downvoted (justifiably!) if someone called women irrational or told homosexuals that their lifestyles should be kept private. I think the difference here is that in one case one would be inferring a belief system from membership in a non-belief-related group, while the other would be inferring a belief system from membership in a belief system. I don't think it's a double standard to treat those things differently (though there are corners of HN that get wildly out of control in either of the aforementioned cases).
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    I don't follow you. Neither calling people groups irrational nor encouraging them to live closeted lifestyles is 'inferring a belief system'.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      I meant that calling a gender irrational is different from calling a belief system irrational, regardless of whether either claim is true.
nitrogen 10y ago
One problem with rules like this is that they inadvertently create a bias in what is considered an "attack", which leads to religious claims standing uncontested because any disagreement is viewed as an attack. Eventually it becomes okay to preach belief, but not okay to advocate for reasoned disbelief. This is related to a current problem in the US left, where tolerance of belief has to compete with intolerance of abuse, and sadly, belief often wins at the expense of the abused.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Then again, this is a general problem, not only when discussing religion but also when discussing racism, feminism etc: everything is an attack according to someone. For context: did you read the comment that started this thread? I and others originally read it as a fairly broad patronising attack against all religions before the author came back and explained the intention. (and I still think it could have been written a lot clearer to begin with. )
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    I have read all of the thread, though not in order, and while from a religious perspective (as a former extremely devout believer) I can see how describing religion as irrational would feel like an attack, from a conversational perspective it can be incredibly frustrating to have to couch every example in softening language to avoid offending someone, and can thus see why the original comment was not so couched. So back to the point of creating tools for productive discussion, is there some solution to the problem that will allow us to communicate ideas without the offense and without the verbosity?
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > is there some solution to the problem that will allow us to communicate ideas without the offense and without the verbosity? I'm not sure we can get there in one HN thread, but consciously addressing linguistic gaps would be worthwhile. When particular words have enough overloaded meaning to cause confusion and conflict, we need to find new words. For the record, I'm for healthy (respectful) dissent. A lack of dissent is poisonous for all parties. But outgrouping is also poisonous.

I actually personally agree but I thought there was a rule, written or unwritten, to keep religion out of HN. Would it be better if I said something like "keep attacks on religion out of HN"?

humanrebar 10y ago

Something along those lines, sure. I'm actually fine with people civilly criticizing religion, though. It's the stereotyping that really sticks out to me. It would be flagged or downvoted (justifiably!) if someone called women irrational or told homosexuals that their lifestyles should be kept private. I'm convinced that the double standard here just doesn't register for most of the HN community, and almost all the English speaking world besides. I said something to raise awareness of the problem.

nitrogen 10y ago
It's the stereotyping that really sticks out to me. It would be flagged or downvoted (justifiably!) if someone called women irrational or told homosexuals that their lifestyles should be kept private. I think the difference here is that in one case one would be inferring a belief system from membership in a non-belief-related group, while the other would be inferring a belief system from membership in a belief system. I don't think it's a double standard to treat those things differently (though there are corners of HN that get wildly out of control in either of the aforementioned cases).
- humanrebar 10y ago
  I don't follow you. Neither calling people groups irrational nor encouraging them to live closeted lifestyles is 'inferring a belief system'.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    I meant that calling a gender irrational is different from calling a belief system irrational, regardless of whether either claim is true.

nitrogen 10y ago

One problem with rules like this is that they inadvertently create a bias in what is considered an "attack", which leads to religious claims standing uncontested because any disagreement is viewed as an attack. Eventually it becomes okay to preach belief, but not okay to advocate for reasoned disbelief. This is related to a current problem in the US left, where tolerance of belief has to compete with intolerance of abuse, and sadly, belief often wins at the expense of the abused.

reitanqild 10y ago
Then again, this is a general problem, not only when discussing religion but also when discussing racism, feminism etc: everything is an attack according to someone. For context: did you read the comment that started this thread? I and others originally read it as a fairly broad patronising attack against all religions before the author came back and explained the intention. (and I still think it could have been written a lot clearer to begin with. )
- nitrogen 10y ago
  I have read all of the thread, though not in order, and while from a religious perspective (as a former extremely devout believer) I can see how describing religion as irrational would feel like an attack, from a conversational perspective it can be incredibly frustrating to have to couch every example in softening language to avoid offending someone, and can thus see why the original comment was not so couched. So back to the point of creating tools for productive discussion, is there some solution to the problem that will allow us to communicate ideas without the offense and without the verbosity?
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > is there some solution to the problem that will allow us to communicate ideas without the offense and without the verbosity? I'm not sure we can get there in one HN thread, but consciously addressing linguistic gaps would be worthwhile. When particular words have enough overloaded meaning to cause confusion and conflict, we need to find new words. For the record, I'm for healthy (respectful) dissent. A lack of dissent is poisonous for all parties. But outgrouping is also poisonous.