4 ms·
Usually originalism is used to defend some desired status quo, justifying persecution of some "other". Whether it's the Bible or the Constitution is largely irr
by unknown_error 5y ago
Usually originalism is used to defend some desired status quo, justifying persecution of some "other". Whether it's the Bible or the Constitution is largely irrelevant; the interpreters are the real gods here, not some bearded zombie carpenter skydaddy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dang 5y agoPlease don't take HN threads into religious flamewar, regardless of which side you're flaming or defending. It leads to extremely poor quality internet discussion (not to mention some of the nastiest) and that's what we're trying to avoid here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20religious%20flame&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- unknown_error 5y agoHow do you avoid religious discussion when the topic at hand is literally an app that spreads propaganda? Religion is inherently ideological and its expression in technological form is still ideological. The mere act of someone publishing this app is itself ideological. No getting around that.
- dang 5y agoI didn't say avoid discussion, I said avoid flamewar. You could start by dropping snark, name-calling, and cheap shots. The idea that "the topic made me do it", i.e. that the appearance of some topic compels internet commenters to sink straightaway into internet dreck, is unconvincing. On HN, we want thoughtful, substantive, respectful conversation. Other users are doing it, so it's clearly doable.
- unknown_error 5y agoEh, sorry, I don't agree with your analysis. Go ahead and ban me if you'd like.