4 ms·

Caste discrimination is definitely a thing. HN has had numerous articles about this. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+caste+discrimi

Caste discrimination is definitely a thing. HN has had numerous articles about this. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+caste+discrimination https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+... reports 2400 links, since algolia is down for maintenance. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-accuses-cisco-of-job-discrimination-based-on-indian-employees-caste-idUSKBN2423YE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-... is one of the bigger articles about Caste-based discrimination. Google also cancelled a talk over this topic as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/02/google-caste-equality-labs-tanuja-gupta/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/02/google-... I guess the bigger question is: is Ycombinator or any receiving VC funds in a lawsuit or otherwise scandal regarding caste-based discrimination? Since this has been discussed here before without threat of deplatforming, something must have changed.

dang 4y ago
Of course it's a thing. As you pointed out, HN has had tons of discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600149. That has nothing to do with the GP comment being religious flamebait and therefore against the site guidelines, which it obviously was. I understand the internet forum instinct to look for specialized nefarious secret reasons when a standard moderation decision gets made, but really.
- noasaservice 4y ago
  > That has nothing to do with the GP comment being religious flamebait and therefore against the site guidelines, which it obviously was. Sure, I get that the comment was based partially in religious hatred and "flamebait". However, at the core of most of those types of comments are a kernel of truth. And if anything, PG has written about understanding those essential pieces of truth... even if they are uncomfortable. And, converting a flamebait comment with a kernel of truth to an actual intellectual conversation should be the height of what HN ascribes to. > I understand the internet forum instinct to look for specialized nefarious secret reasons when a standard moderation decision gets made, but really. Wow. What you're ascribing a conspiracy theory to is what I would call "bias". And normal news orgs put a bias like (eg: "XYZ company is our sponsor"). I'm not invoking some super secret cabal, as your "nefarious secret reasons" would have it. And I would ask that you follow the guidelines, primarily pertaining to "dont be snarky". I know I have a penchant to doing that sometimes, but I try not to. " Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

dang 4y ago

Of course it's a thing. As you pointed out, HN has had tons of discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600149. That has nothing to do with the GP comment being religious flamebait and therefore against the site guidelines, which it obviously was. I understand the internet forum instinct to look for specialized nefarious secret reasons when a standard moderation decision gets made, but really.

noasaservice 4y ago
> That has nothing to do with the GP comment being religious flamebait and therefore against the site guidelines, which it obviously was. Sure, I get that the comment was based partially in religious hatred and "flamebait". However, at the core of most of those types of comments are a kernel of truth. And if anything, PG has written about understanding those essential pieces of truth... even if they are uncomfortable. And, converting a flamebait comment with a kernel of truth to an actual intellectual conversation should be the height of what HN ascribes to. > I understand the internet forum instinct to look for specialized nefarious secret reasons when a standard moderation decision gets made, but really. Wow. What you're ascribing a conspiracy theory to is what I would call "bias". And normal news orgs put a bias like (eg: "XYZ company is our sponsor"). I'm not invoking some super secret cabal, as your "nefarious secret reasons" would have it. And I would ask that you follow the guidelines, primarily pertaining to "dont be snarky". I know I have a penchant to doing that sometimes, but I try not to. " Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]