Hacker News Reader

Comment by gustavus | Hacker News Reader

For those wondering this isn't because of their boneheaded law the official justification is

> Your page has been unpublished,” reads a notice sent to BC Sikhs that was reviewed by PressProgress. “This is because BC Sikhs goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations.

I for one am so glad that we agreed it was a good idea for social media to censor dangerous people and opinions, especially ones that might spread misinformation. It is a good precedent going forward that I do not think will have any unintended consequences.

View on HN

> BC Sikhs goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations.

This is hilarious to anyone who knows any Sikhs. They’re some of the most peace loving people on planet earth.

What a ridiculous generalization. Sikhs are capable of being dangerous just as any other group of people are.

What a ridiculous comment. Are you trying to say all groups are equally dangerous? You know that’s ridiculous right?

If you want to say Sikhs are at least as dangerous as the average, I’m open to see a statistical argument to support that position. I don’t think it’s true, but I could be convinced.

False equivalency fallacy.

You are assuming an extreme position that nobody expressed.

Perhaps, which is why I phrased it as a question.

Phrasing something as a question doesn't make it a question. Re-read your comment and I think you'll see how it does not seem like an honest inquiry, but a rhetorical tactic.

That's the problem with generalization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sikh_terrorism

There are bad people in every group. I’m going to go with: what’s your point?

I stand by my statement until shown statistical evidence to the contrary. This link is insufficient.

> There are bad people in every group

What about Tibetan Buddhists? They have been highly persecuted. Yet only thing they set fire to is their own body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

I specifically talked about Tibetan Buddhists- your Wikipedia article doesn't list any.

> They’re some of the most peace loving people on planet earth

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a study, or serious statistics proving your point.

> They’re some of the most peace loving people on planet earth.

I'd be open to see a statistical argument to support the above position.

  "peace loving" != "not dangerous"

As an example: The kirpan (Punjabi: ਕਿਰਪਾਨ) is a curved, single-edged blade that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious uniform . . . Sikhs are expected to embody the qualities of a Sant Sipahi or "saint-soldier", showing no fear on the battlefield and treating defeated enemies humanely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Canada's single most deadly terrorist attack was the bombing of Air India Flight 182 by Sikh Khalistani separatists. 329 people were killed, including 268 Canadians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

A bomb in an Air India plane done by Sikh can hardly be called a terrorist attack in Canada.

The bomb was planted on the plane in Canada, the attack was planned in Canada, the terrorists were Sikh Canadians, and the attack killed 268 Canadian citizens...

I see. I think our disagreement comes from the fact I don't think "Sikh Canadians" exist.

There are Sikhs in Canada, and they planted a bomb in Canada, but the location was incidental, in my opinion.

Unfortunately they possessed Canadian citizenship, making them Canada's problem. That's the unfortunate reality of having one of the world's most lax immigration systems and an embarrassingly low bar for citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks United State's single most deadly terrorist attack was the bombing of the World Trade Centers by Islamic separatists. 2996 people were killed

Is your point all Muslims are terrorists?

No, but it would be similarly ridiculous if someone described Muslims as "some of the most peace loving people on planet earth" like the post above.

No it wouldn't. Muslims != radical terrorism. It'd be like saying Timothy Mcveigh represents christian ideals.

Trying to stereotype a group of millions or billions of people as "some of the most peace loving people on planet earth" is ridiculous. That was my point. I would not characterize Christians that way either.

islam is an inherently violent ideology. The Quran commands followers to murder innocent people for sodomy or leaving the religion. Martyrdom is an important concept. Sikh doctrine does not call for murdering people. For what it's worth christianity is also an inherently violent ideology, although the new testament eschews that a bit.

Obviously not all muslims strictly follow the ideology.

They are known for being fierce warriors. They carry a ceremonial daggers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_th...

Tibetan buddhist they are not

Sikhs maybe, this is referring to “BC Sikhs” a group on Facebook which is, based on the post, obviously Khalistani sympathizer.

We didn't "agree it was a good idea", this is just how the federated network we call the internet works. It's facebook's prerogative to determine what type of content appears on facebook's website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com