Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> and all the people from higher castes keep the signifying surnames

But that's not what was said. YetAnotherNick said many of all castes are doing this.




That's literally the point... now people from all castes are doing it, so it changes something.

The comment I replied to implies "why didn't the lower castes just always change their surnames", I pointed out why.


> The comment I replied to implies "why didn't the lower castes just always change their surnames"

Not implied. I was outright asking.

> I pointed out why.

By adding a non-existent condition that doesn't follow and using it as a reason.

That's unless you're saying that if the remaining lower-caste also used these neutral names, that would cause the upper-caste that had chosen to also adopt these neutral names to return to using the upper-caste names.

What's wrong with having these neutral names be used by many of the upper-caste (as they apparently are) and also all of the lower-caste? Am I not making sense? Because that's the scenario I was asking about.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: