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

Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#171

Post by huytersd »

olliej wrote: post #152
huytersd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s impossible for it to get entrenched because people from India can’t even tell a persons caste unless they are from the same cluster of towns and villages. This is Indian “county specific” knowledge that cannot survive a cosmopolitan society.

Uh, no it’s not? You can [and people do ] use family names as an effective proxy for caste, and if you’re planning on discriminating on caste that’s more than enough. The Dalit's (in the case of Cisco) are not all the same "village" as the people they're claiming are discriminating against, and it's bizarre you would think that clusters of immigrants from a country of a billion people would magically already know eac…

You don’t have to “magically” know each other, you just have to know what the last name implies. What I’m saying is that knowledge is very locally specific.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#172

Post by ethanbond »

serial_dev wrote: post #88
ethanbond wrote: post #2

The large and vocal constituency activated against the bill is good evidence that in fact it is not already accounted for under existing civil rights law.

No, it is not. If I propose adding "don't be sneaky little hobbitses" to the MIT license and people don't want to add it, is it evidence that we have sneaky Hobbits infiltrating the software developer community? Or something more serious, people who are against the PATRIOT Act are evidence that we need the laws and they are not patriots, anyway? Is it the level of discourse we want? You take what's in the bill at fac…

Maybe if you’re starting from no priors, but actually we’re starting from the prior of 2,000 years of religion-driven apartheid (arguably mandated, but happy to concede this point), and ~50% of Indian-Americans still subscribe to the system that’s responsible for that apartheid (even if they might disagree with the apartheid itself).

So with those priors, I simply cannot put much weight in “people accused of being discriminatory are worried they will be accused of being discriminatory.”

That argument can be leveled against any civil rights action.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#173

Post by btilly »

belltaco wrote: post #118
btilly wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't how it works. The issue is that cases are not brought because it is hard to prove it illegal. https://www.equalitylabs.org/castesurvey documents that 2/3 of Dalits in the USA report being mistreated at work. I'm only aware of one lawsuit about it. That was the CISCO case. No federal agencies got involved because it does not fall into race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic i…

>In the absence of any case, ever, saying that it is illegal to discriminate on caste in the USA, it is almost certainly generally legal. That's not how it works. You're conflating court cases vs court decisions . > documents that 2/3 of Dalits in the USA report being mistreated at work That's an online self reported survey conducted by a partisan foundation. It certainly didn't cover all Dalits in the US, nor was it…

That's not how it works. You're conflating court cases vs court decisions.

No, I just understand how precedence works in a Common Law system.

First, by default things are legal unless specifically forbidden. Being forbidden is based on some theory based upon the law, the Constitution, and a web of precedent called Common Law.

In this case, there is no law specifically written covering caste. There is no precedent regarding caste. Therefore any case alleging that it is illegal to discriminate on caste must be based on an untested theory based on the law. There is no particular reason to believe that a judge will accept your theory about the implications of the law, rather than some other theory that the other side comes up with.

If you take your theory to court, the other side will almost certainly come up with an opposing case. The judge will be weighing two theories. And likely will also be presented with the argument that the untested theory that discriminating on caste is illegal is untested exactly because other lawyers have consistently concluded that the law doesn't say that it is illegal.

This argument is not without merit. I do not know of a clear argument from the law. Maybe there is one that I don't know. But if there was, then I'd expect some prosecuting attorney to have brought it long ago. It doesn't help my confidence that the only attorneys to have brought such a case turned out (as you point out) to have been stretching the facts. What are the odds that they were also stretching the law?

Therefore the lack of cases really is evidence that the law really doesn't cover caste. (I'm quite confident that federal law doesn't cover it.)

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#174

Post by btilly »

innagadadavida wrote: post #122
btilly wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't how it works. The issue is that cases are not brought because it is hard to prove it illegal. https://www.equalitylabs.org/castesurvey documents that 2/3 of Dalits in the USA report being mistreated at work. I'm only aware of one lawsuit about it. That was the CISCO case. No federal agencies got involved because it does not fall into race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic i…

> Therefore discriminating by caste is legal under federal law I’m curious if those people filed a lawsuit of any kind? I would imagine that discriminating against them would fall under in-group vs out-group type of discrimination and companies discourage this. Workers get unhappy about work and other co-workers, this doesn’t mean laws were broken.

What would they sue for?

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#175

Post by sachislife »

TMWNN wrote: post #110
serial_dev wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not. If I propose adding "don't be sneaky little hobbitses" to the MIT license and people don't want to add it, is it evidence that we have sneaky Hobbits infiltrating the software developer community? Or something more serious, people who are against the PATRIOT Act are evidence that we need the laws and they are not patriots, anyway? Is it the level of discourse we want? You take what's in the bill at fac…

>Then, as this gets more and more common, companies stop hiring people from South Asia because they don't want to deal with this. And what is wrong with this solution, compared to the alternative of American companies and the American people being forced to deal with foreign prejudices and beliefs imported into their country? When children get into a fight, adults intervene by separating the combatants and sending th…

> When children get into a fight, adults intervene by separating the combatants and sending them home regardless of who is "right"

Americans are not "adults" of the world and others are not "children". Stop with this patronizing and condescending bullshit. The world doesn't revolve around your ass.

> I don't care. I shouldn't care. I shouldn't have to know or care in the first place!

Same. Hard Same.

Next time when one of your european self appointed "adult" attacks another european self appointed "adult", don't cry like a b---h when the rest of the world continues to live their life like it doesn't matter.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#176

Post by sachislife »

TMWNN wrote: post #128
belltaco wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe we Americans should question whether we should have the arguers, as well as the arguments, in the US in the first place That certainly doesn't sound blanket racist against an ethnicity of 1.5 billion people... Land of free speech indeed.

>Land of free speech indeed. Yes, and I want to keep it that way. I ask again: What is the obligation for America, or Americans, to host intra-South Asian arguments and their arguers? Arguments that do not, in theory, involve any non-South Asians whatsoever? Is the only allowed outcome one in which the number and volume of said arguments hosted by America increase? As I said: >Like all immigrants Indians should be ev…

> What is the obligation for America, or Americans, to host intra-South Asian arguments and their arguers?

Its almost as if American citizens of South Asian origins don't exist. How can people of South Asian origin even be Americans? Am I right?

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#177

Post by sachislife »

TMWNN wrote: post #143
innagadadavida wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe we Americans The tech industry in CA is basically Chinese and Indians. jFYI "You Americans" have no special rights and cannot do anything to disenfranchise. Free speech rights granted by the US constitution doesn't care if you are a citizen or not.

>jFYI "You Americans" have no special rights and cannot do anything to disenfranchise. We Americans can certainly, should we choose to do so, reduce or even eliminate the entry of South Indians or any other nationality/ethnicity. That is not an American peculiarity, but that of any nation to protect its borders as it sees fit. It goes back as far as the concept of the Westphalian state, and really much further than t…

> I am not talking about censorship.

So the following is a snippet from your earlier comment where you are clearly saying that arguers as well as the arguments should not be in the US in the first place.

>> I know. I am going further, and stating that if South Asians are arguing in the US about the existence and extent of caste-based discrimination, and it's gotten to the point that a law was proposed and almost enacted, maybe we Americans should question whether we should have the arguers, as well as the arguments, in the US in the first place.

Since you specifically mention arguments, please tell us how is this not asking for censorship?

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#178

Post by sachislife »

serial_dev wrote: post #150
belltaco wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe we Americans should question whether we should have the arguers, as well as the arguments, in the US in the first place That certainly doesn't sound blanket racist against an ethnicity of 1.5 billion people... Land of free speech indeed.

It may sound like that, but let's assume positive intentions. This person might wanted to point out that the people who argue about the bill (which is certainly not 1.5B people), can't escape from and leave behind their mental prison of casteism, and they import a new form of racism into the US, which is not ideal.

> but let's assume positive intentions.

This TMWNN person is literally saying this about this entire matter

>> When children get into a fight, adults intervene by separating the combatants and sending them home regardless of who is "right"

They actually see themselves as the "adult" and this matter as a children's fight even though its been ongoing for several hundred years prior to Columbus ever set sail to find India and accidentally found TMWNN's america.

And as the other commenter noted, this person has also argued in favor of deportation and blanket censorship on discussing caste matters.

I don't think its fair to continue assuming postive intentions at this point. If not racist, they are extremely condescending at the very least.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#179

Post by belltaco »

btilly wrote: post #173
belltaco wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the absence of any case, ever, saying that it is illegal to discriminate on caste in the USA, it is almost certainly generally legal. That's not how it works. You're conflating court cases vs court decisions . > documents that 2/3 of Dalits in the USA report being mistreated at work That's an online self reported survey conducted by a partisan foundation. It certainly didn't cover all Dalits in the US, nor was it…

That's not how it works. You're conflating court cases vs court decisions. No, I just understand how precedence works in a Common Law system. First, by default things are legal unless specifically forbidden. Being forbidden is based on some theory based upon the law, the Constitution, and a web of precedent called Common Law. In this case, there is no law specifically written covering caste. There is no precedent reg…

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/3061/

>Therefore the lack of cases really is evidence that the law really doesn't cover caste. (I'm quite confident that federal law doesn't cover it.)

Or the lack of cases is because it's very rare or even non-existent in a workplace environment, based on many comments here, including my own, and it happens more in the personal sphere like how there's strong race based preferences in dating and friendship in the US. That's not prosecutable.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#180

Post by sachislife »

jstarfish wrote: post #81
huytersd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who even knows someone’s caste in the US. As an Indian living in the US for 20 years, I have never once even heard it come up in any conversation even in passing. How would you even tell? I grew up in India and I can’t tell.

Not Indian, but from observation in America, Indians get weirdly interested in specific information about the other party's hometown and family when making workplace introductions. It only happens between Indians and the same questions have never been asked of me. I assume this is how all the caste stuff surfaces.

> I assume this is how all the caste stuff surfaces.

Stop making assumptions about things that you have no clue about.

Govt of India did a caste census in 2011, they came up with 4,673,034 categories of caste, sub-caste, synonyms, different surnames, gotras in the caste and clan names [1]

At that scale, no one can tell someone's caste by asking such generic questions about hometown and family.

[1] - https://www.deccanherald.com/content/489752/socio-economic-c...

Post reply on HN