One problem with rules like this is that they inadvertently create a bias in what is considered an "attack", which leads to religious claims standing uncontested because any disagreement is viewed as an attack. Eventually it becomes okay to preach belief, but not okay to advocate for reasoned disbelief.
This is related to a current problem in the US left, where tolerance of belief has to compete with intolerance of abuse, and sadly, belief often wins at the expense of the abused.
Then again, this is a general problem, not only when discussing religion but also when discussing racism, feminism etc: everything is an attack according to someone.
For context: did you read the comment that started this thread? I and others originally read it as a fairly broad patronising attack against all religions before the author came back and explained the intention. (and I still think it could have been written a lot clearer to begin with. )
I have read all of the thread, though not in order, and while from a religious perspective (as a former extremely devout believer) I can see how describing religion as irrational would feel like an attack, from a conversational perspective it can be incredibly frustrating to have to couch every example in softening language to avoid offending someone, and can thus see why the original comment was not so couched.
So back to the point of creating tools for productive discussion, is there some solution to the problem that will allow us to communicate ideas without the offense and without the verbosity?
> is there some solution to the problem that will allow us to communicate ideas without the offense and without the verbosity?
I'm not sure we can get there in one HN thread, but consciously addressing linguistic gaps would be worthwhile. When particular words have enough overloaded meaning to cause confusion and conflict, we need to find new words.
For the record, I'm for healthy (respectful) dissent. A lack of dissent is poisonous for all parties. But outgrouping is also poisonous.
This is related to a current problem in the US left, where tolerance of belief has to compete with intolerance of abuse, and sadly, belief often wins at the expense of the abused.