4 ms·

I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion. It's an important discussion to have and for children to see. All religion is foolish, and has to

I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion. It's an important discussion to have and for children to see. All religion is foolish, and has to be approached from a reality-based context.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion You aren't losing the right. You may be losing Twitter's active cooperation if the manner in which you do so is unacceptable to Twitter, but you never had a right to Twitter's active participation in your attacks to lose.
- jngreenlee 7y ago
  You are of course correct in a grand sense, but there's this weird gray area philosophically where someone builds a town square and says "everyone come and talk in my square"...until the hear what you are speaking about! The problem is likely greater in our corporate/mercantilist system where some state-sponsored and some natural monopolies develop. Totally get and appreciate the private property of the corporation argument...it is their town square after all...but when there is only one that is 'allowed' to succeed, what happens? This then leads to specific tactical rules we have on the books in the US like FTC and even FCC regs, where some may protest unfair commerce. IANAL but I can see this is a real mess. Also, what is the ROI for Twitter when it comes to policing this? We know FB has been having problems.
  - cabaalis 7y ago
    > Also, what is the ROI for Twitter when it comes to policing this? I think most of the things regarding regulating speech coming out of twitter are about avoiding being put in the spotlight next year in the next U.S. election. If what happened in 2016 happens again to any social network, the hammer will fall.
  - goto11 7y ago
    If Twitter was the whole internet, then you would have a point.
tenpoundhammer 7y ago
As a religious person I disagree that all religion is foolish. But I agree that religions should be attacked. As a christian I've seen many ideas that were presented as "Christian" be attacked severely and then the entire christian culture is forced to re-evaluate the idea in the context of the scripture and determine that the idea is in fact not present or contrary to proper biblical teaching. Attacking ideas is good attacking people is bad.
dang 7y ago
This crosses into religious flamewar. That's not ok on HN; please don't do it here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jngreenlee 7y ago
  Dang, respectfully disagree as this is a meta-comment on the concept, not targeting any specific religion. However you are welcome to delete if you feel it best.
  - dang 7y ago
    "All religion is foolish" is religious flamebait for sure. We have to judge this by how people react to such statements, and I guarantee you the expected value of such a thread is a flamewar.
szemet 7y ago
The reasonable interpretation is that you can attack religion (as an ideology) but you can not attact religious people based on their religion. Thats a safe split: ideologies do not have (human) rights anyway... So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers. From the examples they give, I think you can still call them stupid. (After all, being stupid is very much part of the human condition. It's hardly a dehumanizing descriptor.) You just can't call them rats, maggots, viruses, etc. and advocate for their extermination/removal.
- Grue3 7y ago
  But it's not the Bible that is stupid, it's just a book (which might've been considered pretty advanced stuff at the time it was written). What if I have a problem specifically with some of its believers?
goto11 7y ago
Maybe you should approach this issue from a reality based context? A business setting rules for what they want to publish does not infringe on your freedom of speech.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion You aren't losing the right. You may be losing Twitter's active cooperation if the manner in which you do so is unacceptable to Twitter, but you never had a right to Twitter's active participation in your attacks to lose.

jngreenlee 7y ago
You are of course correct in a grand sense, but there's this weird gray area philosophically where someone builds a town square and says "everyone come and talk in my square"...until the hear what you are speaking about! The problem is likely greater in our corporate/mercantilist system where some state-sponsored and some natural monopolies develop. Totally get and appreciate the private property of the corporation argument...it is their town square after all...but when there is only one that is 'allowed' to succeed, what happens? This then leads to specific tactical rules we have on the books in the US like FTC and even FCC regs, where some may protest unfair commerce. IANAL but I can see this is a real mess. Also, what is the ROI for Twitter when it comes to policing this? We know FB has been having problems.
- cabaalis 7y ago
  > Also, what is the ROI for Twitter when it comes to policing this? I think most of the things regarding regulating speech coming out of twitter are about avoiding being put in the spotlight next year in the next U.S. election. If what happened in 2016 happens again to any social network, the hammer will fall.
- goto11 7y ago
  If Twitter was the whole internet, then you would have a point.

tenpoundhammer 7y ago

As a religious person I disagree that all religion is foolish. But I agree that religions should be attacked. As a christian I've seen many ideas that were presented as "Christian" be attacked severely and then the entire christian culture is forced to re-evaluate the idea in the context of the scripture and determine that the idea is in fact not present or contrary to proper biblical teaching. Attacking ideas is good attacking people is bad.

dang 7y ago

This crosses into religious flamewar. That's not ok on HN; please don't do it here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jngreenlee 7y ago
Dang, respectfully disagree as this is a meta-comment on the concept, not targeting any specific religion. However you are welcome to delete if you feel it best.
- dang 7y ago
  "All religion is foolish" is religious flamebait for sure. We have to judge this by how people react to such statements, and I guarantee you the expected value of such a thread is a flamewar.

szemet 7y ago

The reasonable interpretation is that you can attack religion (as an ideology) but you can not attact religious people based on their religion. Thats a safe split: ideologies do not have (human) rights anyway... So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers. From the examples they give, I think you can still call them stupid. (After all, being stupid is very much part of the human condition. It's hardly a dehumanizing descriptor.) You just can't call them rats, maggots, viruses, etc. and advocate for their extermination/removal.
Grue3 7y ago
But it's not the Bible that is stupid, it's just a book (which might've been considered pretty advanced stuff at the time it was written). What if I have a problem specifically with some of its believers?

goto11 7y ago

Maybe you should approach this issue from a reality based context? A business setting rules for what they want to publish does not infringe on your freedom of speech.