4 ms·

It’s dumb. They’re trying to get caste codified and defined where all it will do is extend the longevity of a system that is genuinely on its way to being forgo

It’s dumb. They’re trying to get caste codified and defined where all it will do is extend the longevity of a system that is genuinely on its way to being forgotten, even in India.

runarberg 3y ago
Caste discrimination is illegal in India. So according to your logic, perhaps codifying and banning it seems to be working then.
- xNeil 3y ago
  Yes, but that's because the caste system was prevalent in India. It's really not a thing in the US, and so codifying it seems to give it some sort of legitimacy or something.
  - tokai 3y ago
    There has been several discussion here on HN about how it is a thing among greencard workers.
ugh123 3y ago
Really? How would it extend longevity? Seems like people who are fighting this are likely the ones still benefitting from this system
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > How would it extend longevity? Codifying something in law (or code, ie unit tests) tends to ensure it's durability. Information is something that can exist as an idea ephemerally. Once you write down a definition, it has perceived historical value. Later this can be used as an example of how things were done that might be tried again. Many people recognize this as self-evident.
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    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.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      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.
      - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
        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.
        Supermancho 3y ago
        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.
      - jessicas_rabbit 3y ago
        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.
rdedev 3y ago
Being forgotten in India? Things are much better than it was before but there are still couple being murdered for marrying out of their caste
ajross 3y ago
A simple search for "caste discrimination" seems to disprove that. Whether or not you agree that it's routine or rare, or whether it happens in the US or just in India, it's absolutely not "forgotten". Coverage of the practice in the media is pervasive.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thegreenswede 3y ago
It's absolutely not forgotten in India. Maybe openly talking about in terms of 'caste', sure. But I just visited India for over a month and it was extremely clear they bucket each other into groups. And it's also very alive here in the US. Recently a friend at an ivy league mentioned that an 'upper class' Indian refused to work with a lower class one for their lab's research. Just straight up said he would not interact with him. And this was at a western University!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Glyptodon 3y ago
  Something like that should be grounds for expulsion IMO.
  - thegreenswede 3y ago
    Impossible to prove tho. You can always just claim you don't like the person for other reasons. That's why this whole 'banning caste' stuff is mostly performative imo. People will just be hostile to each other but not be open with the reason.
    - MPlus88 3y ago
      [dead]
    - Genghis_Khan 3y ago
      > You can always just claim you don't like the person for other reasons. That's true. It's also true that there are plenty of professional contexts where people have to work together regardless of their personal feelings toward each other. Sometimes lives depend on it.
ambicapter 3y ago
So in the article we got to see a whole lot of "It's embarrassing me that you would even bring this up" arguments and now in this comment we get to see the "It doesn't even matter anyways, and you talking about it is making it worse" arguments, all classic defensive positions when someone definitely supports a system that is being exposed as toxic.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 3y ago
Do you have examples of "referencing something in law makes it last longer"? This is not an argument I recall people making much in other ban discussions across the political spectrum such as (a) banning discrimination on sexuality, (b) banning abortions, (c) banning guns, (d) banning censorship, so I'm very skeptical without historical examples? Generally those have been hotly-fought battles where the "no action" course would not have resulted in it simply going away - see also the 100 years after the civil war and racial discrimination in the US persisting - so the claim of "ignore it and it'll be ok real soon now, promise" doesn't appear to have much merit.
known 3y ago
[dead]

It’s dumb. They’re trying to get caste codified and defined where all it will do is extend the longevity of a system that is genuinely on its way to being forgotten, even in India.

runarberg 3y ago

Caste discrimination is illegal in India. So according to your logic, perhaps codifying and banning it seems to be working then.

xNeil 3y ago
Yes, but that's because the caste system was prevalent in India. It's really not a thing in the US, and so codifying it seems to give it some sort of legitimacy or something.
- tokai 3y ago
  There has been several discussion here on HN about how it is a thing among greencard workers.

ugh123 3y ago

Really? How would it extend longevity? Seems like people who are fighting this are likely the ones still benefitting from this system

Supermancho 3y ago
> How would it extend longevity? Codifying something in law (or code, ie unit tests) tends to ensure it's durability. Information is something that can exist as an idea ephemerally. Once you write down a definition, it has perceived historical value. Later this can be used as an example of how things were done that might be tried again. Many people recognize this as self-evident.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  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.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    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.
    - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
      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.
      - Supermancho 3y ago
        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.
    - jessicas_rabbit 3y ago
      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.

rdedev 3y ago

Being forgotten in India? Things are much better than it was before but there are still couple being murdered for marrying out of their caste

ajross 3y ago

A simple search for "caste discrimination" seems to disprove that. Whether or not you agree that it's routine or rare, or whether it happens in the US or just in India, it's absolutely not "forgotten". Coverage of the practice in the media is pervasive.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thegreenswede 3y ago

It's absolutely not forgotten in India. Maybe openly talking about in terms of 'caste', sure. But I just visited India for over a month and it was extremely clear they bucket each other into groups. And it's also very alive here in the US. Recently a friend at an ivy league mentioned that an 'upper class' Indian refused to work with a lower class one for their lab's research. Just straight up said he would not interact with him. And this was at a western University!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
[flagged]
Glyptodon 3y ago
Something like that should be grounds for expulsion IMO.
- thegreenswede 3y ago
  Impossible to prove tho. You can always just claim you don't like the person for other reasons. That's why this whole 'banning caste' stuff is mostly performative imo. People will just be hostile to each other but not be open with the reason.
  - MPlus88 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Genghis_Khan 3y ago
    > You can always just claim you don't like the person for other reasons. That's true. It's also true that there are plenty of professional contexts where people have to work together regardless of their personal feelings toward each other. Sometimes lives depend on it.

ambicapter 3y ago

So in the article we got to see a whole lot of "It's embarrassing me that you would even bring this up" arguments and now in this comment we get to see the "It doesn't even matter anyways, and you talking about it is making it worse" arguments, all classic defensive positions when someone definitely supports a system that is being exposed as toxic.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 3y ago

Do you have examples of "referencing something in law makes it last longer"? This is not an argument I recall people making much in other ban discussions across the political spectrum such as (a) banning discrimination on sexuality, (b) banning abortions, (c) banning guns, (d) banning censorship, so I'm very skeptical without historical examples? Generally those have been hotly-fought battles where the "no action" course would not have resulted in it simply going away - see also the 100 years after the civil war and racial discrimination in the US persisting - so the claim of "ignore it and it'll be ok real soon now, promise" doesn't appear to have much merit.

known 3y ago

[dead]