3 ms·

I'm sure you can understand how if an article with religion at its core makes it to the front of HN, discussions about that religion are completely on topic and

I'm sure you can understand how if an article with religion at its core makes it to the front of HN, discussions about that religion are completely on topic and justified (and not at all generic). This is not meant as a flame war or a tangent. When I say I find religion scary, it's in response to the article pointing out that a blogger who focused on the absence of religious tolerance was hacked to death with a machete by members of the very religion he stood against. I don't think I'll come to your way of thinking about my post (no surprise) but I'm a bit confused why HN would allow an article to get to the front page if it doesn't want the contents therein discussed. Edit in response to Being Kinder. Be Kind http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html

dang 11y ago
Your comment didn't discuss the particulars of the article. It went straight to generalities about religion being destructive that could have been made in any of a thousand unrelated threads. That's why I called it a generic tangent. Those reliably lead to flamewars: because they're no longer anchored in specific material, people just use the occasion to repeat grand stock responses. Your comment wasn't uncivil (which we're grateful for) but it predictably opened the floodgates for many that were. HN doesn't "allow" articles to get to the front page. They get there on their own; sometimes they then get flagged or penalized, as this one did. This story, though horrific, wasn't off-topic per se—but HN is incapable of conducting a meaningful discussion about anything so inflammatory, so in practice it ends up being so. Edit: We disagree, but your effort to be kind is more important than that. I appreciate it.