I don't think that's very helpful. It doesn't seem to me that he as a very good grasp of what 'heresy' means, and you didn't explain what you meant by it in context.

Did you mean:

• What you're doing is the modern-day equivalent to heresy (which I'd need explained)

• What you're suggesting is something that could serve the same purpose of accusations of 'heresy' in past days

• something else

Note that for literal readings, the modern-day equivalent of 'heresy' is 'heresy'. It still means the same thing and is used the same way by the Church.

I think this amounts to modern day heresy.

I don't know what you mean by this. What's 'heresy' outside of a religious context, and why should we care?

That seems like an acceptable gloss of the distinction, although there are probably fine-grained intuitions it won't cover.

I don't have an airtight definition handy, but it seems to me that (at least in the modern day in the developed world), religion is foolish, and (for instance) being a particular gender / race / etc. is not.

You may offend people who do or believe foolish things, unless they meet the criteria for mental illness/retardation or you can avoid it without changing the substance of your claim.

Of course, there are some situations where the need not to offend an off-limits person or group must take the backseat to some greater need.

if its author's intended goal was to offend, rather than to seek truth.

False dichotomy. People can be offensive accidentally and/or ignorantly in the course of making all kinds of statements; it doesn't have to be either deliberate or a side feature of an attempt at seeking truth.

Statements that are true, important to the development and practice of rationality, and lower a group's status should be said. Persons stumbling upon information of this nature would benefit from doing their best to present the information in a way that will sting the least for this group's status (post would be less controversial, would have to hear less distress calls). The more altruistic might consider how the community benefits from conscientiously proffered information.

A person who may have been offended despite all this will probably feel compelled to comment. I think it is important not to just be irritated at someone reacting this way, but to consider whether they have any valid point. Any time someone is offended by what we say, we may have an opportunity to learn how to prevent offense in the future (while still conveying the information accurately). In some cases, we might even learn we missed something and were wrong.

There are a lot of offensive things that "happen to be true" that you don't say all the time.

Quick heavy-handed illustration:

You meet someone who was badly disfigured in an accident, let's say this guy, and after taking a look at him say "Holy shit, you're ugly!"

This is a completely true statement (being scalped by industrial machinery will do that), also rude and offensive, and has very little reason to need saying.

Suppose there is a statement that happens to be true, but which will also lower someone's or a group's status resulting in offence. Will you chose not to offend and keep the statement to yourself, or will you say it?

You haven't given enough information. There are a lot of offensive things that "happen to be true" that you don't say all the time. It being offensive is a good reason not to say it, but presumably you have in mind some reason to say it. One would need to evaluate that against the 'giving offense' to see which one wins.

I have a small question, and this is an abstract question not specifically about any particular controversy on LW: -Suppose there is a statement that happens to be true, but which will also lower someone's or a group's status resulting in offence. Will you chose not to offend and keep the statement to yourself, or will you say it?