"As striking as are the varieties of religious experience, they pale beside the variety of material things that can possibly exist in the universe."
Spoken with the self-confidence of someone who's never had anything remotely approaching a religious experience, or deems it worthy of investigation by those with Serious Minds, whose chest will swell with pride as he solemnly observes the traditional a minute of silence once a year as satisfactory repayment to those who've laid down their lives in past wars to his benefit, before carrying on mocking a sacred belief that most of those people likely believed in.
I assume this would also apply to political flamewars?
When a flame war arises when someone asking for clarification regarding a (typically pejorative) claim, is guilt or innocence based on relative epistemological truth, or popularity of the idea? As long as one's words are ideologically consistent with the majority opinion, it seems like the HN guidelines have little bearing on acceptability of comments. But go against the grain in the slightest, even asking how someone knows of what they claim to be true, and it seems it won't be long before a warning is received. Completely misrepresent what someone has said, to the degree of pure fantasy? Perfectly fine. "Do not read minds" would be a positive addition to the guidelines imho.
This particular exchange may not be the best example, but on certain topics it seems like anything short of full agreement is no longer tolerated around here. Arguing in bad faith is one thing, not being allowed to disagree is something else entirely.
If history is any guide, I will be the one at blame. But compare the words written there against the HN guidelines - who is behaving inappropriately? If one disagrees, or dares ask a question, and people lose their tempers because you're challenging their orthodoxy, who is at fault?
If you were to take a careful read through the words written in that entire thread and ones like it, you might notice a recurring pattern of people knowing things that they have no way of knowing. Knowing what people have done in secret. Knowing what people are thinking. Knowing what people's motives for actions are. Knowing what people really mean, even though their words say something else.
If you're tired of ideological flame wars, consider whether people making things up might have something to do with it.
This is the internet. People are constantly making things up. Actually, this is mostly what people do. I don't think we can do much about that. It isn't against the site guidelines to be wrong.
As for the comment you linked to, it seems like a neutral statement of what the commenter thinks. Maybe they're mistaken, but I don't see how that was a flamewar comment.
After thinking about this for a bit I think I need to think some more, particularly about how to articulate this idea to you in a way that is persuasive. In the meantime, I am going to try to avoid (or at least minimize) further experimentation.
I have to run out the door but am going to write a more substantial reply later. I'm sure you have better things to do than listen to the complaints of some lunatic on the internet, but I think these things have genuine merit and may be more important (and perhaps simpler to improve) than you see, so hopefully you can check back later if even out of curiosity. Thanks...
Those people in graves? They were put there by material impacts. Serious material impacts. That Serious People do pay a lot of attention to. Because the consequences are real, unambiguous, and repeatedly demonstrable.
I'm not sure I see the irony. Nothing you've said is contrary to what I've written.
Perhaps there is some sort of a miscommunication here....have you somehow reached the conclusion that I've asserted that material reality doesn't exist, or is unimportant?
Meta: Oh my the throttling is especially strong today, I wonder if the "too fast" algorithm got a little fine tuning to reduce the amount of wrong think getting through the filter.
While we lack the ability to articulate a defense or substantiation of our religion, we more than make up for it with the vigor to downvote, on a platform that censors those with dissenting opinions.
Spoken with the self-confidence of someone who's never had anything remotely approaching a religious experience, or deems it worthy of investigation by those with Serious Minds, whose chest will swell with pride as he solemnly observes the traditional a minute of silence once a year as satisfactory repayment to those who've laid down their lives in past wars to his benefit, before carrying on mocking a sacred belief that most of those people likely believed in.