Comment by olavk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by olavk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> When these groups are treated in a negative manner by society, it is proper and healthy, as it helps to discourage the groups spreading.

Can you back that up? My impressions is that mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger and more comitted (as long as you don't perform outright genocide against the group, of course).

Anyway, you jump from disagreement with a viewpoint (criminal nature of blacks, creationism) to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob. I don't know what this line of thought is called in English, but I don't think it is something nice. If I happen to disagree with your line of thought (and indeed find it dangerous to society), would that make it okay for me to throw rocks through your windows in the middle of the night?

(Just read your profile: "Part of the cancer that is killing Hacker News". I suspect I have been trolled. This is why we cant have nice things.)

You haven't been trolled, I added that as a joke in response to previous accusations of trolling! That said, I was definitely in "devil's advocate" territory, I just didn't like the GP's attempt to blithely equate all possible groups.

"mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger "

"Mob persecution" is going way too far. I meant general disapproval, not rocks through windows. And I disagree it makes them stronger. The example I am thinking of is unemployment, which is pretty looked-down-upon in most western cultures. You're not going to be lynched for being unemployed, but do you proudly admit it at parties? No. That is the kind of "soft pressure" I advocate being placed on the religious, not outright oppression.

"you jump from disagreement [..] to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob"

Again overstating my claims. Not "any kind of random harrassment and persecution", of course. Instead, fairly mild teasing and a general air of disapproval.

You say he is "overstating [your] claims" yet you wish the death of all religious people? You flame and then smother so that you can flame once more it seems.

Hm, rereading it now, I admit I could have put that better. I didn't mean the elimination of all religious people, ie. by death, I meant the elimination of religion. Just like when people say they want to eliminate poverty, they don't mean they want to kill all the poor people.

However it was poorly put, so apologies for the confusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com