3 ms·

That's cool and stuff, but irrelevant to what we are discussing here. In Tibet, monasteries benefited greatly from slavery. Abolition of slavery hurt them a l

by trasz 6y ago

That's cool and stuff, but irrelevant to what we are discussing here. In Tibet, monasteries benefited greatly from slavery. Abolition of slavery hurt them a lot. No wonder they are protesting.

aspenmayer 6y ago
I’m responding to your comments. It’s relevant to the discussion you started. If you don’t follow your own comments to their logical conclusion, wouldn’t you say you’re not arguing in good faith? It’s kind of how we do things on HN. Tibetan monasteries as they operated historically are an artifact of history. Further historical and archaeological studies would be the only way to gather verifiable data, facts, figures, and artifacts from the period when the supposed slavery occurred. This conversation seems like it is mired in historical revisionism on all sides. I’m not a Chinese Tibetan anthropologist or archaeologist, nor am I a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. I don’t know the facts of what happened, or how their society interpreted those events and the people who experienced them. For me to stand in judgement of such a nebulous concept would be irresponsible. That you are convinced of the correctness of your beliefs is good; you should seek to share your sources so we too can be similarly convinced. Otherwise we’ll just have to take your word for it, which is no better a place than we’re in now. For what it’s worth, slavery is much worse than being a serf. However, being a serf was likely so miserable that the distinction to our modern sensibilities may be one without a difference. I am opposed to forced servitude in all the world in all its forms.
- trasz 6y ago
  The studies already exist, though. I don't think any of them questions the fact that monasteries benefited greatly from serfdom/slavery; the dispute is about how horrible it was for the rest of the population. (Random Wikipedia quote: "Tibetan communist Phuntso Wangye recalled his anger at seeing freshly severed human ears hanging from the gate of the county headquarters in Damshung north of Lhasa in 1945".)
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    Random Wikipedia quotes aren’t verifiable, and thus aren’t valid sources in this context. But to keep in the spirit of debate, Communist sources would be suspect, as would Tibetan ones. Neutral bystanders or third parties have less incentive to misrepresent events and context to put their side in a better light, like Communist and Tibetans would both naturally be suspected to be doing. Do you have any third party sources for these time periods and events?
    - trasz 6y ago
      Of course I do, and had you bothered to read the linked article you'd find them.
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        Wikipedia’s sources are Wikipedia’s. I’m asking you to post some specific links here in the discussion so we can discuss them. We already discussed your last batch of Wikipedia sources and found them inconclusive and lacking. If you’d like to discuss specific links, then link me to the specific original source and we can look at them. I am open to being convinced, but only you know what sources you’re finding so convincing. Simply saying you already posted them is a dodge because we already discussed the Wikipedia page you linked, but you don’t say which sources in that article you are referring to. Please clarify so we can all be on the same page together.
        trasz 6y ago
        I don’t follow the discussion between the plural you; the discussion that happened here on HN was that I provided sources, and you ignored them.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        You posted one inconclusive Wikipedia article, and no further links to primary sources, by my count. And you would have me find this lack of adequate sourcing acceptable. I don’t. Despite your attempt, bare minimum that it was, I remain unconvinced. If you wanted to appeal to your sources, link one. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source. This concept is subtle to some people. I did not mean to be confusing in that regard. Am I missing anything?
dang 6y ago
Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and sticking to the rules when posting here? Note that they include: "Don't be snarky." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by trasz 6y ago

That's cool and stuff, but irrelevant to what we are discussing here. In Tibet, monasteries benefited greatly from slavery. Abolition of slavery hurt them a lot. No wonder they are protesting.

aspenmayer 6y ago

I’m responding to your comments. It’s relevant to the discussion you started. If you don’t follow your own comments to their logical conclusion, wouldn’t you say you’re not arguing in good faith? It’s kind of how we do things on HN. Tibetan monasteries as they operated historically are an artifact of history. Further historical and archaeological studies would be the only way to gather verifiable data, facts, figures, and artifacts from the period when the supposed slavery occurred. This conversation seems like it is mired in historical revisionism on all sides. I’m not a Chinese Tibetan anthropologist or archaeologist, nor am I a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. I don’t know the facts of what happened, or how their society interpreted those events and the people who experienced them. For me to stand in judgement of such a nebulous concept would be irresponsible. That you are convinced of the correctness of your beliefs is good; you should seek to share your sources so we too can be similarly convinced. Otherwise we’ll just have to take your word for it, which is no better a place than we’re in now. For what it’s worth, slavery is much worse than being a serf. However, being a serf was likely so miserable that the distinction to our modern sensibilities may be one without a difference. I am opposed to forced servitude in all the world in all its forms.

trasz 6y ago
The studies already exist, though. I don't think any of them questions the fact that monasteries benefited greatly from serfdom/slavery; the dispute is about how horrible it was for the rest of the population. (Random Wikipedia quote: "Tibetan communist Phuntso Wangye recalled his anger at seeing freshly severed human ears hanging from the gate of the county headquarters in Damshung north of Lhasa in 1945".)
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Random Wikipedia quotes aren’t verifiable, and thus aren’t valid sources in this context. But to keep in the spirit of debate, Communist sources would be suspect, as would Tibetan ones. Neutral bystanders or third parties have less incentive to misrepresent events and context to put their side in a better light, like Communist and Tibetans would both naturally be suspected to be doing. Do you have any third party sources for these time periods and events?
  - trasz 6y ago
    Of course I do, and had you bothered to read the linked article you'd find them.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      Wikipedia’s sources are Wikipedia’s. I’m asking you to post some specific links here in the discussion so we can discuss them. We already discussed your last batch of Wikipedia sources and found them inconclusive and lacking. If you’d like to discuss specific links, then link me to the specific original source and we can look at them. I am open to being convinced, but only you know what sources you’re finding so convincing. Simply saying you already posted them is a dodge because we already discussed the Wikipedia page you linked, but you don’t say which sources in that article you are referring to. Please clarify so we can all be on the same page together.
      - trasz 6y ago
        I don’t follow the discussion between the plural you; the discussion that happened here on HN was that I provided sources, and you ignored them.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        You posted one inconclusive Wikipedia article, and no further links to primary sources, by my count. And you would have me find this lack of adequate sourcing acceptable. I don’t. Despite your attempt, bare minimum that it was, I remain unconvinced. If you wanted to appeal to your sources, link one. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source. This concept is subtle to some people. I did not mean to be confusing in that regard. Am I missing anything?

dang 6y ago

Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and sticking to the rules when posting here? Note that they include: "Don't be snarky." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html