231–237 of 237 posts
How has this slipped from front page so soon when the topic is still hot. Please forgive my ignorance. What is the logic behind it?. I have faith we are not elitist.
It was also penalized by HN software called the 'flamewar detector' which reacts to overheated discussions, which this certainly is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there anything in the actual essay you disagreed with? To answer your question, first of all name calling and attacking the people instead of the ideas makes for a nasty and unproductive conversation—basically like youtube comment discussion. Secondly you're on the site he built. The guidelines clearly say, "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." If you dislike the guidelines or…
standards of discourse in a community are the product of that community. we don't take direction from "dear leader" Paul Graham or anyone else. is there anything in my comments that you think is out of line? did I attack anyone ad hominem or use weasel words or other forms of deceptive rhetoric? judge for yourself. my standards of conversation are perfectly fine though, in my opinion. in fact, nearly ALL of the conve…
First, a disclosure: I hate Facebook, I think Free Basics is evil, and I think Marc Andreesen says a lot of stupid shit. That being said, this whole uproar is just more proof that social media is totally, utterly broken. Let me explain. While I think Marc is on the board of an evil company and that his thought process on this matter is incredibly ignorant, I really appreciate the fact that he shares his point of view…
Besides isn't it the intolerant who shape the society around them. If one wants a community whose members aren't ignorant or bigoted, why would just a live and let live approach shape the community to one's desires?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The snark would be more believable if you hadn't initiated a conversation with a huge straw man, and then proceed to repeat it. Once again, I'm not claiming that British colonialism was great for India or that Britain didn't subjugate India or that British capitalists didn't treat India as a captured market or any other number of doubtless terribly evil things that I am sure you can tell me about all day. I'm merely…
Talk about straw men and a lack of facts. Nobody said India would have "kept up" with the West or was on the verge of an industrial revolution. I am merely saying that the British miracle was less because they were so smart and more because they had an entire subcontinent, and later vast empire, at gunpoint. Without which they would have had to trade on equal terms in a global market. Point is Britain would done wors…
We actually don't know if India would have been worse or better off without Britain's influence, and we can't possibly know.
Your data is not relevant to this discussion. I'm aware that Britain treated India as a vassal state and don't dispute it, I'm not sure what you think your data proves but it isn't anything I have argued.
I'd suggest that Germany didn't have colonies because it didn't industrialise and didn't unify itself politically until late in the game and therefore did not have the ability to project power, not that it didn't industrialise because it didn't have colonies - that's a pretty bizarre interpretation of history, once again.
"What can I make up on the hoof to support my notion that Britain is uniquely evil and all of India's ills are 100% the fault of Britain" is not a credible position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talk about straw men and a lack of facts. Nobody said India would have "kept up" with the West or was on the verge of an industrial revolution. I am merely saying that the British miracle was less because they were so smart and more because they had an entire subcontinent, and later vast empire, at gunpoint. Without which they would have had to trade on equal terms in a global market. Point is Britain would done wors…
The initial commenter said just that, by comparing 18th century indian share of world trade etc with that after british rule - asserting that the difference is entirely because of British actions. That's what I was disputing. We actually don't know if India would have been worse or better off without Britain's influence, and we can't possibly know. Your data is not relevant to this discussion. I'm aware that Britain…
See my other statement: Honestly I think this reflects a fairly common sentiment amongst westerners. Not the first time I've heard this; doubt it would be the last. I've even heard white south africans in the west say that south africa would have been better off under apartheid, to be greeted by a chorus of nodding heads. Scary people actually think subjugation is a good thing.
Proving my point. It's clear you're British and shamelessly defending oppression, for what reason I don't know. If I had to guess I'd say, unlike Germany, Britain never had a process of de-empirification akin to the germans realising they as a nation committed a crime and that it was unacceptable.
How has this slipped from front page so soon when the topic is still hot. Please forgive my ignorance. What is the logic behind it?. I have faith we are not elitist.
It was heavily flagged by users. Flagging makes posts drop in rank. It was also penalized by HN software called the 'flamewar detector' which reacts to overheated discussions, which this certainly is.
It's high time HN brings in more transparency to the whole system. I am sure the current system can be totally rigged since there is zero clarity.
HN need to adopt badges to denote each major upward/downward state transition. Users can notice discrepancy and help fine tune the system(not just flamewar detector). Better solution would be to open source few parts which play a role in fixing rank. As a community driven success story - users are not here to serve elitism nor to serve someones personal pocket. The sooner HN realizes the importance of clarity and willingness to work with community - the longer it will respected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to re-read what you said. You will never have a counterfactual proving that India was not able to embark on an industrial revolution, because the British seized the country and stymied all growth that was not beneficial to them. By then going on to say if not the British then someone else would have done it give the reader the impression that you believe it was justified because of that. If that's not what y…
My use of language was perfectly precise. I never said any of the things attributed to me, you don't get to blame me because of your lack of reading comprehension. The first industrial revolution in the UK began in the mid 18th century. The 1820s is towards the end of the first industrial revolution - you are thinking of the second industrial revolution. Do you think that Britain managed to dominate india in the 18th…
British's advantages were politics, crony capitalism and superiority complex.