4 ms·

This is exactly the type of comment we're trying to avoid on HN. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments

by tomhow 8mo ago

This is exactly the type of comment we're trying to avoid on HN. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

intellectronica 8mo ago
I'll accept your perspective and try to learn from it. However I think that the comment is relevant, and you can see from the replies gathered before it was flagged that it did spark a relevant discussion. Reminding that the speaker is a spiritual leader and not an authority on the use of technology is not a sneer and and not an ideological statement. In any context other than religion, which I understand is sensitive, a statement of that sort would be considered a contribution to the discussion, not an ideological battle. And that's precisely the problem - censoring a discussion about the relevance of religion to the matter is the ideological act.
- tomhow 8mo ago
  The phrase “supernatural woowoo” is clearly against the guidelines I cited, as is age-old cynicism about the validity of religion or intellectual merits of anyone who believes in it. We're here for intellectual curiosity, not the same old predictable thing.
  - intellectronica 8mo ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I can see the point. Would a phrasing like "The pope believes in and promotes supernatural claims that are not supported by evidence" work better? On reflection I would have preferred that too.
    - tomhow 8mo ago
      Sure, but it's not just the wording, it's the topic. The validity of belief in religion, and its bearing on the believer's authority about other matters, is just not a good topic to bring up after how we've seen the topic play out countless times on internet message boards over more than three decades. Everyone just says what they always believed about the topic, and nobody learns anything new.

by tomhow 8mo ago

intellectronica 8mo ago

I'll accept your perspective and try to learn from it. However I think that the comment is relevant, and you can see from the replies gathered before it was flagged that it did spark a relevant discussion. Reminding that the speaker is a spiritual leader and not an authority on the use of technology is not a sneer and and not an ideological statement. In any context other than religion, which I understand is sensitive, a statement of that sort would be considered a contribution to the discussion, not an ideological battle. And that's precisely the problem - censoring a discussion about the relevance of religion to the matter is the ideological act.

tomhow 8mo ago
The phrase “supernatural woowoo” is clearly against the guidelines I cited, as is age-old cynicism about the validity of religion or intellectual merits of anyone who believes in it. We're here for intellectual curiosity, not the same old predictable thing.
- intellectronica 8mo ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I can see the point. Would a phrasing like "The pope believes in and promotes supernatural claims that are not supported by evidence" work better? On reflection I would have preferred that too.
  - tomhow 8mo ago
    Sure, but it's not just the wording, it's the topic. The validity of belief in religion, and its bearing on the believer's authority about other matters, is just not a good topic to bring up after how we've seen the topic play out countless times on internet message boards over more than three decades. Everyone just says what they always believed about the topic, and nobody learns anything new.