This is the thing I find super weird about a lot of the comments in this thread. In the vast majority of cases, it's the majority discriminating against the minority, often a very small minority. (Which makes sense; I mean, most minority groups don't have the clout to discriminate against members of the majority. Sure, it happens [c.f. apartheid in South Africa], but it's not the common case.)

And yet somehow that makes it not worthy of awareness and fixing? It's a very odd argument to make.

Because the stats have been completely misinterpreted in the thread by all the commenters. Kind of like the work visa vs green card legal requirements mass confusion on HN(and all the other tech forums) whenever H1B is discussed. No one is making that "odd argument".

rayiner's comment about 90% of Indian-Americans not thinking discrimination is a big problem is about perceived racism from non-Indian Americans. If you read the link it's about racist Twitter posts about an Indian American by what looks like white folks. No mention of caste. Nothing about internal casteism in the Indian community.

I say this as a HN'er but sorry HN can be just dumb sometimes.

The political commentary on HN makes way more sense when you realize probably half the posters are Indian.

> If it turns out that 90% of (you name the group) are not discriminated against, but 10% are, does that mean that we should ignore that discrimination?

At the very least, it might mean you don’t bring in an activist that antagonizes members of the majority group, as was allegedly the case here.

Activism undertaken on behalf of a minority group affects the relationship between that minority group and society as a whole. All members of the group have a stake in the overall relationship between the group and other groups.