Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#51

Post by Retric »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #45
Retric wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries don't have a history of race based slavery. Rome, Inca, etc viewed conquest as the path to slavery. Even most American slaves where at the root captured by a different group in Africa rather than based on skin color. The race to slavery connection was more an accident of history than any design. Early America had some black slave owners and they imported from Africa because Native Americans tended to d…

New York is not part of the Roman or Incan empires last time I checked.

Yet, they also lack the deep institutionalized racial slavery connection. Despite what people think slavery is actually more expensive than providing subsistence level pay. Due to the constant immigration influx and institutions like indentured servitude slavery was never important to New York's economy and by avoiding the slavery trap they actually had much stronger economic growth.

NYC did see slavery from 1655 (fist auction) to 1827 but issued a gradual emancipation act in 1799. Hardly hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery. Even before that there was various waves of freed slaves associated with the Revolutionary war. When black men made up one-quarter of the rebel militia in White Plains and where then freed after the war etc.

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#52

Post by jbros »

INvidiA wrote: post #18
nkrisc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok if we're using this bizarre analogy, it's as if you never even could tell if there was a giraffe in the movie theater or not, but if there was, you want it gone. When a gay couple gets married on the other side of the country, do you notice? Does your life change? If it's the mere idea of it you're opposed to, then that's bigotry, not some practical concern like a giraffe blocking your view of the screen.

If you believe God's law is paramount and have convinced yourself that God's law does not allow for gay marriage, then your opposition is not based on hate, but rather based on your conception of what's proper and what's not. This urge to thrust "hate" on people is dangerous because is dehumanizes them. If someone is hateful, then they are evil, and evil people deserve punishment. So the thinking goes, but it is regr…

I disagree. If anything, hate is a very human action. And the truly opressed know this. By not calling it out, you are actively complicit, giving more power to the oppressor.

How many times does the story need to play out? Didn't we just see the #metoo thing play out? These women are victims of hate. Same story with LGBT and black.

No one is dehumanizing anyone. The word is about human autonomy and dignity.

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#53

Post by eesmith »

INvidiA wrote: post #18
nkrisc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok if we're using this bizarre analogy, it's as if you never even could tell if there was a giraffe in the movie theater or not, but if there was, you want it gone. When a gay couple gets married on the other side of the country, do you notice? Does your life change? If it's the mere idea of it you're opposed to, then that's bigotry, not some practical concern like a giraffe blocking your view of the screen.

If you believe God's law is paramount and have convinced yourself that God's law does not allow for gay marriage, then your opposition is not based on hate, but rather based on your conception of what's proper and what's not. This urge to thrust "hate" on people is dangerous because is dehumanizes them. If someone is hateful, then they are evil, and evil people deserve punishment. So the thinking goes, but it is regr…

I see no reason to not use the word "hate" in this context. Someone can hate broccoli without implying that broccoli is evil. Someone can say "I hate royalty" without implying that any member of royalty is evil, or that there should be any sort of "punishment" beyond a switch to a republican form of government.

Hatred - a "strong dislike" - does not need to be expressed through fiery emotion. A checklist which says "I will not provide service to someone who is {insert protected class}, followed robotically, is still an expression of hatred.

A computer vision system could be used to implement some sorts of racism, so of course the CV system itself could not be said to "hate" the person. Instead, it's an expression of the hatred embedded in the system.

Someone choosing to follow God's law is expressing the hatred embedded in that belief system. That they might "only" be an instrument of that hatred rather than an instigator does not absolve them.

You wrote "Is it really hate though? Or just people accepting certain social standards and living their lives in accordance."

If those social standard are based in hate, then why shouldn't we say those people are being hateful?

Moreover, if many others from the same society hold different beliefs (e.g., there are Christians for and against gay marriage, and for and against slavery, and for and against tattoos, and for and against women speaking in the church, etc.) then why should we excuse those people who choose a specific interpretation which condones and encourages discrimination?

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#55

Post by astrodust »

oflannabhra wrote: post #26

Tyler Cowen interviews Sujatha Gidla on his podcast, Conversations with Tyler [0]. Not having heard of her, and not having any exposure to caste societies, I was struck by the sharpness of her insight and the strength of her conviction. I highly recommend listening. [0] - https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla-an...

> not having any exposure to caste societies...

Never heard of America?

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#56

Post by fnbr »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #48
wmil wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financially it's smarter than being a post-doc or untenured lecturer.

Any data to back that up? Really curious.

Post-docs, and adjunct professors make O($30k), which is less than what a subway conductor makes, presumably.

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#57

Post by akgerber »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #48
wmil wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financially it's smarter than being a post-doc or untenured lecturer.

Any data to back that up? Really curious.

Conductors average $62k/year: https://bizfluent.com/info-12099370-salary-new-york-city-tra...

It's a decent middle class job.

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#58

Post by noobhacker »

tacomonstrous wrote: post #3
LarryL wrote: post #2

My parents visited India a few years ago, they faced that issue when their guide refused to enter a coffee shop, when he explained that it was because he was not allowed to enter because of his caste, they turned back (disgusted)...

One of the main benefits in India of increasing urbanization is the accompanying anonymity. I would assume this incident didn't occur in a big city. Did it?

According to the author of the book being discussed, the caste system is very much alive in cities [1]. From what she said, it seems like people can tell your caste by asking a few simple questions or observing your body language. The caste system persists even among Indians in America.

[1] https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla-an...

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#59

Post by oflannabhra »

astrodust wrote: post #55
oflannabhra wrote: post #26

Tyler Cowen interviews Sujatha Gidla on his podcast, Conversations with Tyler [0]. Not having heard of her, and not having any exposure to caste societies, I was struck by the sharpness of her insight and the strength of her conviction. I highly recommend listening. [0] - https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla-an...

> not having any exposure to caste societies... Never heard of America?

The term "caste" is not used to refer to social stratification. It is more specific [0].

America has its own ethnic-based social stratification issues, but I think that opponents of caste systems would say that comparing modern day America, with its issues, to the entrenched caste system in India is a comparison that greatly waters-down the oppressiveness of caste and minimizes the challenges facing its reform.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste

Re: The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker

#60

Post by jbros »

INvidiA wrote: post #6
voltooid wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that do want to hate others, will find reasons to hate.

Is it really hate though? Or just people accepting certain social standards and living their lives in accordance. Sure it's soul crushing for those who are oppressed, but the oppressors would probably be well adjusted people in other societies.

This is a fundamental human algorithm that exists across all cultures and societies.

This is exactly what hate is. And it should be pointed out by everyone. The oppressor only has power if others give it by being complicit.

Post reply on HN