Hacker News Reader

Comment by fxtentacle | Hacker News Reader

I believe his argumentation that this is a push by Christian organizations might be correct, but I believe he's deluded in that he appears to think that he's speaking for the majority.

"65% of adults in the United States identified themselves as Christians."

View on HN

> Americans' membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup's eight-decade trend. [1]

That Pew survey suggesting 65% are Christian seems vulnerable to the halo effect - a little irony is present in the name. People who were conditioned as children to believe they ought to believe in Christianity (which is different from believing in Christianity) will answer 'yes' to such a survey question even if their measurable actions like church/mosque/synagogue attendance or OnlyFans donations indicate differently.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-...

It's more complex than that. For one thing the current porn industry does have some ethical issues. Even people not opposed to pornography per se have issues. But beyond that, the zealously anti-porn crowd isn't just Christians. It's something of an unholy alliance -- you have more than a few ultra-woke, a smattering of the Q crowd type, and of course the good ol' fashioned core of Catholic and Baptist types. Plus no doubt some others.

I love that every time Christianity is brought up on HN someone throws out the Q crowd. I have chatted with a number of Q people and they were not Christians and non of them were for restricting porn, that is out of their 'scope'.

Q on your side is the antifa of the other side, just a name for an nondescript group you disagree with.

I did not think they were. I do think the Q types are a moral-religious movement, or moral reference framework, of some kind in many ways. Perhaps sucked up by the void caused by the decline of mainstream Christianity in America. Just as the far-left progressive equality crowd (antifa, if you will) can be at times. That's why I made the comparisons.

The thing that the "christian" industry does also has ethical issues. In a lot of countries church has engaged in raping of children and child abuse.

You're right, I've read numerous articles and editorials in the NYTimes about this issue.

Most Christians I know are against legislating morality because that could result in the government being involved in the church.

Most Christians I know are way more myopic than that.

There are many Christians, and the people you know are not an adequate random sample for statistical inference in general.

Where is the demarcation line between "legislating morality" and simply "legislating"? Murder is morally wrong, aren't laws against murder thus legislating morality? I don't claim to know many christians, but the phrase "legislating morality" isn't in the common vernacular of those I know. They advocate for what they believe in, and advocate against that which they oppose, the same as anybody else.

You can freely buy alcohol in Turkey, a 90% Muslim country.

65% of people saying they’re Christian in a survey doesn’t mean 65% of people are part of the most strict faction.

His entire argument seems to be "because people who are involved in this are christian, it's evil". Or alternatively, this one guy at the NYT, wrote a article that I claim to be opinion (and ignoring the role played by the BBC and others).

Pornhub was actually peddling in CSAM and revenge porn, and rape being sold to consumers. They are cracking down on payments, because of the reputation risk, and plain old morality. This has the risk of pushing some sex-workers into less safe avenues. We can debate this - and there is a healthy debate about that.

But in modern media, you don't just need facts to make a opinion, a group that is a outgroup that you can attack is also necessary. Hence this article.

hence this article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com