Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm not joking. For instance, gambling[1] is something I don't do, but I would +4 the hypothetical question:

    8': There is absolutely nothing wrong with casinos.
Indeed, my wife and I used to eat at the casino, because their kitchen was open late. If I had more reservations, say related to addiction potential[2], maybe I'd only +1 it, but I wouldn't give it a high negative score, which would be necessary to score an overall high RWA.

I don't smoke[3] either but (enclosed public smoking being illegal here) I would also agree with the hypothetical:

    8'': There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking clubs.
I also won't join them, but don't mind if traditional christian people meet and do traditional christian things together[4], so I would also agree with the hypothetical:

    8''': There is absolutely nothing wrong with cathedrals[5].
All these things diverge from my beliefs, but I accept others have their own beliefs[6]. Why should I not?

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor."

Na du deting to du xeta, fo mang kapawu to. (...to your shipmate)

[1] beyond the undiversifiable risks any capitalist runs

[2] ID is required in our casinos, so I wouldn't be surprised if problem gamblers were 86ed.

[3] except on those rare occasions when either my pyromania gets out of hand or my campfire skills are weak

[4] although St Benedict makes it sounds like traditional christian people are a bunch of super-commies who gave up personal as well as private property. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira#Story_sum...

[5] My local one, from the seventh century, has chapels for both St Barbara and St George, two of my favourite christian saints.

[6] "il faut de tout pour faire un monde" (the world is diverse) Desh fosho kowlting fo du da belek.

Bonus clip (casino): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swvzItnFtCw

You're engaging in solipsism here; the point isn't whether or not you think pre-marital chastity is acceptable or not (I bet there's a question in this goofball RWA book asserting that it's not OK) -the point is the nazis were nudists[0] and homophiles, making absolute nonsense of those questions as any kind of meaningful measurement of "RWA." Again, as I said in the first place; this seems to be a simple list of late 20th century center left bigotries about what American religious people are like rather than anything to do with "authoritarianism."

Despite people who tell me about the TEETH CHATTERING ATROCITIES of the nazi pork butchers ... saying things on twitter ... every sign of authoritarianism I see; from corporate fascism, to the idiots burning the cities down and toppling statues: every last one of them would have scored more like you on that scale as very open minded and accepting people, and less like some random Pentacostal who thinks foamy buttsex is kind of gross, but who doesn't bother anyone and who this scale would denounce as "authoritarian." If words like "authoritarian" are to retain their ordinary meanings, your scale goes into the dumpster, and you must refrain from ever referring to it again. It is a simple measure of WEIRD[1] psychological tendencies. Not "authoritarianism."

[0] better reference: referring to Nazi nudist societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur#Naturism...

[1] again: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-...

A clip for all who have ever felt persecuted by bigotry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9XdGS5to8s

> ... your scale goes into the dumpster, and you must refrain from ever referring to it again

Since you put it that baldly, how about a solomonic reference instead?

"Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways." (Prov.3:31)

Na wanya kom sif inya, unte go dawe im natim.

Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MPtXUeUznY

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact