Hacker News Reader

Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

Please don't take HN threads into religious or nationalistic flamewar, or any kind of flamewar.

If you want to have a curious conversation about translation and scholarship—great. But importing pre-existing flamewar talking points into HN threads is definitely not that, and is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Needless to say, I have no view on the relative accuracy of Mahabharata translations. But I know HN threads and I know internet flamebait when I see it. No more of this, please.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927390 also.

View on HN

I think you’re missing the point here. It’s a flame war if and only if there are two perspectives and it comes down to a matter of choice (e.g Vim vs EMacs). The majority of the commenters here are pointing out to the fact that some Western academics either deliberately or ignorantly mistranslate Sanskrit and to a person who has no background in this stuff often form an incorrect or incomplete picture which then leads to a positive/negative bias in their minds.

It's a flamewar comment when a commenter uses denunciatory tropes and ready-to-go polemical links on a classic flamewar topic. When an account has a history of prosecuting nationalistic and religious flamewar, that goes double. Sometimes the account is even one in a sequence of accounts that we've had to ban for this in the past.

I'm not asking anyone to submit to colonial dogmas here—just to abide by the site guidelines when making their substantive points.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That sounds fair. I also agree about keeping HN for hackers and not politics.

I don’t quite understand how this is “ideological flamebait”. The posted article is about translations of Indian epics through a Western lens. Op here pointed out possible issues with such translations, one I am glad to be informed about and will look out for. If this is not curious conversation I don’t know what is.

Yes this seems a bit reactive. This wasn’t going into a flame war. How have we become so soft to react so strongly to topics like this. The shortcomings and criticism of Western scholarship has a long and storied history - this isn’t something new.

You guys seem to be under the impression that I'm taking a side on this topic. Nothing could be further from the case. I know nothing about it, and for all I know you're all 100% correct. (Also, lest anyone assume otherwise, I have profound respect for India.)

Even if they're 100% correct*, commenters still have to follow the site guidelines. Showing up with an obviously pre-existing agenda, ready-to-go talking points, and denunciatory rhetoric is definitely not curious conversation. Moreover, HN has a problem with Indian nationalist flamewars (as it does with other nationalist flamewars), quite vicious ones in fact, and I unfortunately have had to moderate enough of them to recognize the pattern when I see it.

* (especially if they're 100% correct, since that is what everyone feels about their own views in any case)

Dear Dang,

Thanks for the clarification. You are right and I'll try to tone it down.

> HN has a problem with Indian nationalist flamewars (as it does with other nationalist flamewars), quite vicious ones in fact, and I unfortunately have had to moderate enough of them to recognize the pattern when I see it.

The reason probably has to do with Indian voices being shut down by the Western academia and Western media (both play a big role in the conditioning) which ends up with Indians like me (and many others like me) who come with pitchforks in discussions with people who do not have such intentions. I recognize that and will work on it.

So yes you are right that Indians, off late, have become extremely passionate about certain causes: be it defending Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma or Nationalistic viewpoints (India in general). Please understand that this is reactionary to what we have witnessed/subjected to over years if not decades of being exposed to brainwashing by Western academia and media. It was only recently that we have started to look into our own history without the corrupted lens of the Colonial powers that modified/changed/rewrote/distorted many portions of our historical past (as they say, Victors write History). That anger at being fooled for so long is what is driving the under current of Nationalism today.

We are beginning to stand up for what we believe in to be right (whether that is accepted by the rest of the World or not is immaterial at this point). We have kept quiet and not spoken out against misinformation or mischaracterization of our people for all these years with a hope that it will change. It sadly hasn't happened.

However, you are not wrong in that Indians are generally extremely passionate (which wasn't the case some 20 years back). It will cool down over time I am sure of that. But do give us some leeway to express ourselves (even if we make mistakes) as sometimes we just need an outlet.

Thanks for your clarification and understanding.

You implicitly take a side by shutting down discussion that criticizes western indological research under the pre-tense of "I... recognize the pattern when I see it." This may be controversial, but if you don't let others voice their views, then you let the predominating opinion retain its influence.

I recognize moderation is required but I was genuinely engaging with someone's viewpoint curiously. It is not frequent you come across someone here that is conversant with tattvavAda philosophy of MadhvacArya - doesn't seem acceptable to shut them down, especially given the history of colonial influence in India and throughout the world.

These countries are finally now finding their voice after centuries of occupation, and it seems quite harsh to shut down that down on the basis of flamewars. Ultimately you probably have more experience on this topic so will ultimately defer to your judgement and authority but wanted to share another POV.

> You implicitly take a side by shutting down discussion that

By that argument, all moderation is "implicitly taking a side", in which case we might as well have no rules at all.

Well that’s a bit of a leap, but I still stand by that content moderation can lead to a bias in the conversation. But judging by the downvote people seem to disagree.

I've answered this in another reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32931098.

Thanks Dan! I do see how the examples you mention in the other reply could be problematic and lead to the discourse taking an unsavory turn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com