Hacker News Reader

Comment by Vaslo | Hacker News Reader

"The most disturbing attribute of a social credit system is not that it’s invasive, but that it’s extralegal. Crimes are punished outside the legal system, which means no presumption of innocence, no legal representation, no judge, no jury, and often no appeal. In other words, it’s an alternative legal system where the accused have fewer rights."

Also, what if you disagree with me politically about illegal immigration - does that give you a "right" to ban me from your establishment? Imagine it on the other side as well for people who are against abortion.

View on HN

Also people lose their voice. Case in point:

"But some Chinese are unaware that it even exists. And many others actually like the idea. One survey found that 80% of Chinese citizens surveyed either somewhat or strongly approve of social credit system."

How many people actually like the idea and how many claim they do because they want to score points? The endgame is that the government can do whatever it wants and claim it is with "the support of the people"

the people would only believe what they believe, which exactly describe what you thinking right now. Because you think Chinese has no their own opinion, so they can't express themselves. I don't want to convince you, since I knew you won't believe me as well. Just want to tell you, Chinese is high intelligence human being like you, they are not stupid as you think.

The parent wasn't saying the Chinese aren't intelligent. He was saying if opening saying you hate the social credit system would cause you to lose credit on said system, you are incentivized to say nothing or feign support even if you don't. Because of this, there is now way to truly know how many people really support this. If it was a policy of one store, you would see the company succeed/fail. When it is the government, you lose the ability to vote with your feet.

> Because you think Chinese has no their own opinion, so they can't express themselves.

That was not what the poster you're replying to was saying. Quite the opposite, actually. The other poster was describing a political sophistication that would make an 80% approval rating for a social credit system a rather amusing irony.

Indeed, surveys in totalitarian societies aren't worth anything. Imagine you have never seen anything resembling free press/idea exchange in your whole life, since childhood until now. Moreover, for some reason you are required at regular times of the year to publicly profess your political support without actually understanding what is it all about, as there is no opposing force to profess your ideas against (OK, maybe "America" in TV news). The clever/sociopathic ones just find ways to game the system until they get their "heads chopped off" by aligning to some fraction that loses some internal fight; whether you are a little person or a major figure, you have to follow the same algorithm.

There are many things that are not illegal, but ruin the experiences of others: cutting in line, making a scene to get freebies or comps, pushing. Previously, cities and towns were generally smaller and communities provided social pressure against this behavior.

Most people are aware of the Chinese tourist stereotype. Perhaps they see this "social credit" system as a way of combating that behavior now that communities are much too global to provide the social pressure they once did.

The general populace agreeing with their leadership isn't unique to authoritarian societies. I'm sure a poll in the US will find broad support for many US government policies too, even when they're viewed negatively in other countries.

Note that I'm not supporting the social credit system (or disapproving either), I'm just pointing out that I don't think, unlike other responders here, that this poll finding is automatically void just because it was done in China. How many Americans would have been polled as "somewhat or strongly approving" of the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Exactly right. Corporations already use a complex web of eula and tos that effectively opt you out of the legal system and into the court of their favorite arbiter.

If there's some guy out there with your name, who also lives in your state and also uses facebook, and he happens to be a klansman, by the time you realize that you have a Kafkaesque situation to sort out with your 'social capital,' the damage may already be tremendous. We already see this at the U.S. border with agents checking your social feeds, and in legions of stories about stolen identities... god help us.

>Also, what if you disagree with me politically about illegal immigration - does that give you a "right" to ban me from your establishment?

If the owner said that in the US? Well, probably not. If this hypothetical establishment is open to the public, they aren't allowed to discriminate based on political beliefs AFAIK.

They could just kick you out for 'no reason', but that seems hard to do without pretext.

Someone's political beliefs are not a federally protected class[1] and therefore it is legal to ban them if you want.

https://content.next.westlaw.com/5-501-5857

Id imagine I wouldn't be welcome in a church or mosque because of my views on abortion.

you imagine incorrectly. it’s trivially easy to find faith communities with many views on that issue.

Respectfully, there are faith communities that hold any number of views without regard to their consistency with founding documents or traditions of teachings. I heartily recommend that for anyone who is genuinely seeking spiritual guidance to avoid religious establishments that do not challenge present cultural norms and mores.

However, it is very unlikely that a church is going to keep someone out, especially a non-believer, because of their views on abortion. Church attendance is generally open to everyone. It is participation in the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc.) and leadership that often requires doctrinal commitments.

respectfully, that sounds like a fairly mealy-mouthed implicit endorsement of a very specific 19th century form of textual literalism to me. Speak plainly when you state a position, and I'll be happy to return the favor. If i'm reading you properly, you ought to know beforehand that we have probably very different hermeneutics.

I would be happy to start on this issue by pointing to any number of long-running (like, millenia-long) ideas on this and other complex moral issues that are littered throughout the many texts of abrahamic faiths. Claiming that there is exactly one intepretation that's valid (which you implicitly do) is a crabbed and limiting way of reading and living pretty much all of the time.

On this specific front, my church only recognizes two sacraments, and both are open to all. With regards to challenging present norms and mores, I am happy to agree, albeit in a way that you almost certainly don't mean. For instance: the more of the body of christ that locks themselves to concentration camp gates, the better!

I had no intention of being less than candid. I was just trying to be concise. Let me see if I can put it more explicitly:

> Respectfully, there are faith communities that hold any number of views without regard to their consistency with founding documents or traditions of teachings

In the first part of my comment, regarding abortion (which was the subject brought up by astura) I am simply saying that the bulk of Christian teaching is against it (except perhaps where the life of the mother is in danger). This is not some parochial, evangelical fundamentalist position: the Catholic and Orthodox churches (and several different flavors of Protestantism) are in agreement on this. Theologians throughout history likewise concur. That is not to say that there has been no debate, but that debate has generally not been about whether abortion is generally wrong, only about what the exceptions are.

Any church that departs from such a strong and consistent tradition of teaching and embraces abortion without reservation is likely in all matters more influenced by the surrounding secular culture than by it's own scriptures and traditions.

> I heartily recommend that for anyone who is genuinely seeking spiritual guidance to avoid religious establishments that do not challenge present cultural norms and mores.

Here, I genuinely intend this to be more generic advice. The point of being a spiritual seeker is that you recognize there is something missing from the culture around you and you are looking for an alternative - something that is hopefully timeless.

> However, it is very unlikely that a church is going to keep someone out, especially a non-believer, because of their views on abortion. Church attendance is generally open to everyone. It is participation in the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc.) and leadership that often requires doctrinal commitments.

I hope this is clear enough.

Now to respond to your remarks:

> I would be happy to start on this issue by pointing to any number of long-running (like, millenia-long) ideas on this and other complex moral issues that are littered throughout the many texts of abrahamic faiths.

Please do.

> Claiming that there is exactly one intepretation that's valid (which you implicitly do) is a crabbed and limiting way of reading and living pretty much all of the time.

You are inferring something that I did not imply. There is not only one valid interpretation for many things. However, some interpretations cohere better and are better supported, and you can only stretch interpretations so far before it becomes dishonest.

> On this specific front, my church only recognizes two sacraments, and both are open to all.

Which ones? Does participation in these sacraments at least require an acknowledgment of the solemn purpose of those sacraments, or can you just do them for a laugh?

> With regards to challenging present norms and mores, I am happy to agree, albeit in a way that you almost certainly don't mean. For instance: the more of the body of christ that locks themselves to concentration camp gates, the better!

What events are you referencing?

We welcome all people and religions in my church. Some people are vehemently pro choice. We're big on coffee time after service. Just look for your local Unitarian universalist church. Every one of them is slightly different and mostly crazy, but we're serious about our after service coffee time.

Do Unitiarians really call it a "church"? When I went to a Unitarian service they referred to the building as a "meeting house" and not a "church".

Some do, some don't. The ones I know in our family's congregation refer to it as a "church". I wouldn't be surprised if the pastor referred to it differently in formal public situations but people I know in the congregation call it a "church".

There's variability among UU congregations and individuals. It's like any religion in that way, although I think UU is maybe a little more heterogeneous than some.

Churches are scrambling for membership like they are gay bars, you might be surprised what you find!

Could you please review the guidelines? The bar for substantiveness here is higher than this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Emailing us for help with one account while abusing the site with another is pretty cheap. I've banned both. Please don't make accounts to break HN's guidelines with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Aside from the fact that there exists a wide variety in houses of worship such that your imagination is off-kilter, it's also worth mentioning that there is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison between a religious-group and a business.

I think you might be surprised about how many churches don't ask / don't require you to share their exact views on abortion.

or that would welcome your visit anyway even if they do require it.

So long as you don't make a big deal out of it.

People who a big deal out of not fitting in in a way that most everyone else finds disagreeable gets told to gtfo because they don't fit in but this goes for basically every group, not just religious ones.

Muslims aren't really anti-abortion the way evangelical Christians are - it is believed that the "soul" joins the fetus four months after conception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion#cite_note-1

It is this kind of exactness and certainly about a fantasy construct that makes humans so hilarious.

Churches that don't welcome all aren't really functioning as churches. More like social clubs.

  And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need
  of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to
  call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

  Luke 5:31-32

Well functioning Churches are social clubs. Fellowship, witnessing and counseling are all found in Christian traditions of worship.

They certainly are "social clubs", but that doesn't mean they "aren't functioning" as churches. They're functioning just as their membership wants them to function. Whatever Jesus may have said is really irrelevant; I'm sure they can pull out some other bible verse that supports their hard-line position, and a religion isn't defined by some character in a book that may or may not be historically accurate, it's defined by how the members of that religion currently behave. If a church isn't welcoming to someone because of their views on abortion, you may think that goes against the spirit of that religion, but you're not the authority on that religion, that church is the authority on it for themselves (though they may disagree about many things with other churches/denominations).

Just open your wallet and you are going to be welcome in the ones that didn't welcome you first.

I'm no fan of churches or religion, but actually you'd be surprised. There's a bunch of Christian and other denominations that are really not anti-abortion. The Presbyterians and Lutherans are rather liberal these days and probably don't care about your view on it. Also, the Unitarians will certainly welcome you. They're not all conservative anti-abortion places the way you're thinking.

However, I will point out that the liberal Christian denominations are generally dying out these days: the evangelical denominations (who are the ones you're worried about) are the ones adding new members, building "mega-churches", etc., while the "mainline Protestant" denominations that have liberalized themselves a lot to try to stay relevant and get new members are full of elderly people who are literally dying off. Basically, younger people go one of two ways: if they're more liberal, they tend to just abandon religion (like me), but if they're conservative, they instead go to conservative (typically evangelical) churches.

Also, this is a US-centric view. Christians outside the US, esp. in Europe, tend to be far more liberal than in the US. If you go to a random non-Catholic church in western Europe and tell them your views, they'll probably be happy to have you. Even super-Catholic Ireland just legalized abortion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com