Hacker News Reader

Comment by cynicalsecurity | Hacker News Reader

Religion is the source of that nonsense. Help bring it down any legal way possible. Ridicule it, expose it, help people realise it's just a bunch of fairytales, most often useless and sometimes actually damaging.

View on HN

There are plenty of feminists that are as militantly atheistic as they are militantly anti-pornography/prostitution/female nudity. The modern Moral Majority isn't just composed of religionists anymore.

I would have to pick my jaw up off the floor if militant feminists composed even 2% of the general population.

Just to calibrate your sense of scale: 1% of the United States population is still 3 million people.

you are right in calling out these people are a tiny portion of the population, yet here in 2024, their numbers don't seem to matter... as they have been wildly successful in moving the overton window

In summary, they are a tiny % , but by no means insignificant in terms of impact.

It's not a head poll, it's who has influence. One NYT columnist has more influence on the politics of the society than 1000 people in rural Appalachia. Influence is not distributed equally, it's very heavily skewed.

Moral majority or vocal majority?

My phrasing was made in reference to the political movement largely associated with Jerry Falwell. Despite the name, the movement never lived up to either aspects of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

There are valid social reasons for rejecting the cheap manipulation of people using addictive visual patterns that have nothing to do with religion but do relate to ethics. Even if no humans are hurt in the creation of the content, humans can be harmed by its addictive consumption.

Okay but would you want your ads on a porn site if the business was yours? That makes it seem like you approve of that behavior (e.g. drug use, gore, etc).

What does porn have to do with drug use and gore?

It makes you approve nothing, but for sure in the US it makes you a target for the vocal moralists. Leading to boycots (which might kill you), dubious free publicity (which you might feel is worth it or not), and extra regulation (which might kill you).

Where did pharmaceuticals and gore come into this?

Sounds like a very religious way to handle your issues

Your are correct. Religion taught me this. So why not let it backfire on them.

Yes, when they famously declared "there's no sex in USSR" it was because USSR was a theocracy.

Communism was a religion.

So, you extend the definition of a religion to "everything a lot of people support" and then declare that it needs to be "brought down". How does it work for you - you plan to ban people from agreeing on anything, and thus enshrine world peace?

As much as science is a religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com