It's ridiculous though, that's like saying that the 13th amendment assured the longevity of slavery since it was never as explicitly defined in the Constitution.

Try to divorce the concept from the specific issue. It's not ridiculous, on it's face. It's one aspect of history, that seems to hold true. The concept of a belief being promoted by enshrining it in writing, is not a truth, but a matter of circumstance. eg Any religious writings.

This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts.

Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values.

Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm.

These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.

> This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts.

You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion.

eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”

Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it.

I guess I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination. Many people have commented on HN about experiencing caste discrimination but being unable to do anything about it, because Americans have no understanding of what caste discrimination is. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.

Many people in this thread have completely misunderstood the answer I gave, to the question that was posed.

> holy texts are a totally different ballgame.

They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident.

> I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination

It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect:

eg "How would it extend longevity?"

is the dissonance that I have pointed out.

Yes, which is why the United States frequently has never-ending debates on whether soldiers should be quartered in the homes of civilians.

I find that when people defend something as self-evident it often isn’t.

What's the difference between codifying anti-discrimination laws and codifying laws against other things, such as shoplifting?

There isn't one. Written laws allow individuals to defend against prosecution by referencing the letter of the law, and wrongfully persecute by recontextualizing similar acts as parallels. I don't think it's a bad trade to have a common reference, despite these weaknesses.

Note, I support the idea of adding castes to common discrimination clauses. That is incidental to the issue of codification, which I am interested in.

If you make categories by law and afford certain benefits to those categories then people will continue to adopt them and perpetuate it. Caste is complex, build over many generations. It is however very easy to destroy by just forgetting the things people use to categorize others and would be nearly impossible to rebuilt in the modern world as it was a system built for local communities where people intimately knew each other for generations. The goal should be breaking and forgetting knowledge that let’s people distinguish castes in the first place.

Shoplifting is shoplifting. No one is going to “forget” you can steal things so you need explicit laws forbidding it in perpetuity.