What's new

How Modi defeated liberals like me

we are discussing what is right and wrong. not what will happen. crimea happened, we can still debate whether it is right or wrong knowing fully well the end result, right?
Perfect - that's the crux of the matter. The predominant liberal(if you may say) school of thought revolves around this adage - the importance of choosing the right over wrong.

I have a serious issue with this binary solution - simply because there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong. It's all relative. In the end I must thank you for tacitly accepting the inevitable coming of the Uniform Civil Code in India.

I am looking out for new articles in some of my favorite websites and blogs - kafila, twocircles, countercurrents etc. I wonder when would they start crying. Already their Modi/post ratio is nearing 1!


but mining has been going on in other places, whether by Indian or other companies. what is the greater purpose here, and not in other cases.
if everything is case by case basis, with no common argument then its all subjective what is the point of having rule of law. just say ah in this case this looks like better idea. like kings and queens used to do.
As I said - you are boiling it down to moral ideas.

We are bringing the Uniform Civil Code because it suits Indians and also because we can. If it does not suit say 1 or 2% of the population, they have the choice to adapt to the changed circumstances. Certainly after sati was banned, it took us decades to actually come to terms with it.
 
.
A secular person by the very definition of secularism would not give a toss about religious sensitivities when it comes to laws. Laws should be the same for everyone. Which brings me back to my original point about these people being secular only when it suits them.

Spot on.. & those so called secularists are the real reason why the very term has lost it's real meaning. In anycase change in status-quo will be met with negativity by those who are averse to confront the reality. uniform civil code is not a monster which will hijack freedom of practice. Religion & state are two different things... There's always a provision where the two doesn't have to step on each other's turf!
 
.
Perfect - that's the crux of the matter. The predominant liberal(if you may say) school of thought revolves around this adage - the importance of choosing the right over wrong.

I have a serious issue with this binary solution - simply because there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong. It's all relative. In the end I must thank you for tacitly accepting the inevitable coming of the Uniform Civil Code in India.

I am looking out for new articles in some of my favorite websites and blogs - kafila, twocircles, countercurrents etc. I wonder when would they start crying. Already their Modi/post ratio is nearing 1!



As I said - you are boiling it down to moral ideas.

We are bringing the Uniform Civil Code because it suits Indians and also because we can. If it does not suit say 1 or 2% of the population, they have the choice to adapt to the changed circumstances. Certainly after sati was banned, it took us decades to actually come to terms with it.
Lolz this argument can be effectively used for anything, enact a law to kill all muslims and give reason whatever you just said now. It will sound equally logical. :sarcastic:
sati and offences like that are criminal offences, if there are practices which endangers life of others (in any community) its already illegal and they will get same punishment.
we are discussing civil laws.
 
.
Lolz this argument can be effectively used for anything, enact a law to kill all muslims and give reason whatever you just said now. It will sound equally logical. :sarcastic:
sati and offences like that are criminal offences, if there are practices which endangers life of others (in any community) its already illegal and they will get same punishment.
we are discussing civil laws.
That is technically true as well. But quite a strawman's argument. In any case, it's coming. :)
 
.
well, thats your view. I think supreme court did a wrong thing in imposing their will on hindus here. Thats the local custom, what next allow muslims to do puja in temples?

what is wrong in having 4 wives and 40 kids, if somebody can afford it whats the problem.
btw, where will all this end? tribals of niyamgiri believe the hills near them are gods and hence cant be sold to a company for profit. Will supreme court tell them, hills cant be gods and they are devoiding country of progress?

Well it does, cause more often than not they are not able to, and they end up being a burden on the country and the tax payers.

It will have to end at some point of time. All of us one time lived in forest and caves, people change their ways and have to move on with the time. Come tomorrow a bunch of people can claim whatever they want on some religious ground, next day some other group and we should sit their scratching our heads right? This is exactly why we have set of laws in place, which helps in governing and running a country. We are not some primitive tribal group of people with everyone doing whatever they feel like.
 
.
That is technically true as well. But quite a strawman's argument. In any case, it's coming. :)
lolz even if it is coming it does not change the validity of my argument.
but since you repeated it quite a few times, wanna bet?
I will quit pdf it if it is enacted.. :p:

Well it does, cause more often than not they are not able to, and they end up being a burden on the country and the tax payers.

It will have to end at some point of time. All of us one time lived in forest and caves, people change their ways and have to move on with the time. Come tomorrow a bunch of people can claim whatever they want on some religious ground, next day some other group and we should sit their scratching our heads right? This is exactly why we have set of laws in place, which helps in governing and running a country. We are not some primitive tribal group of people with everyone doing whatever they feel like.
how is having loads of kids a caveman mentalty. And you cant stop people from cohabiting and having kids, can you? even if they say we are not legally marred.
 
.
lolz even if it is coming it does not change the validity of my argument.
but since you repeated it quite a few times, wanna bet?
I will quit pdf it if it is enacted.. :p:


how is having loads of kids a caveman mentalty. And you cant stop people from cohabiting and having kids, can you? even if they say we are not legally marred.
Deal :D (Though I am not making any bets from my side, I just know it is gonna happen)
 
. . .
The Modi fanboys call people like me "secular" - as if it was an insult, almost an abuse. Which surprised me, because the word "secular" was never looked down upon in India. However, by continuously patting themselves on the back for the alleged "secular" credentials - the supremely corrupt Congress and its allies had reduced the word "secular" to an abuse and insult.

Hi,

Welcome to the club.
 
.
‘Look, I’m so secular!’ The rise of virtue signallers on social media
July 23, 2017, 12:05 AM IST Chetan Bhagat in The Underage Optimist | India | TOI
The rise of social media in the past few years has meant that a lot of public opinion is debated, discussed and shaped on forums like Twitter and Facebook, and even thousands of local WhatsApp groups. One would imagine these powerful tools that connect millions can enable us to distill the best opinions on an issue, which can then shape our response to them.

However, there is a huge problem. These discussion forums are public. And in public, a lot of people are fake. They want to be seen as good, proper, balanced, modern and progressive. Most of all, they want to be seen as virtuous. If I can come across as a person who has these wonderful qualities to my 200-odd Facebook, Twitter or WhatsApp friends, it is more valuable than actually saying what I feel on the issue.

In this context, a term called ‘virtue signalling’ has become popular on the internet recently, although it was used in a few articles several years ago. But it is only now that you see virtue signalling on full display.

Try this. Mention that “I don’t feel safe sending my parents on Amarnath Yatra after Muslim terrorists killed Hindu pilgrims.” Chances are several people out there will scream ‘communal! communal!’ to your statement before you even understand what on earth happened.

You see, these people have to show that they are so virtuous, so noble, and so good that they sense something is communal even when others don’t. Of course, there is nothing wrong in your original statement, as you are stating a fear based on an incident that has occurred.

However, the virtuous lot on the internet will demand that a) you don’t mention any religion at all ever, b) as Hindus are in majority, we must never raise an issue that affects Hindus because that makes us majoritarians and c) a truly virtuous person will not see this as an act against Hindus, but merely some bad people trying to hurt some good people and that is all that needs to be mentioned.

Of course, that is not how the human mind works or thinks. The fact remains that many Hindus will now think twice about sending their elderly parents to pilgrimage sites, particularly in Kashmir. However unsavoury, this needs to be discussed. How can we have a country where the majority of people feel unsafe about going to their places of worship? Is it communal to discuss this issue and come up with solutions?

According to the virtue signallers, it is. Your mentioning the word Hindu, let alone an issue that affects only Hindus, will brand you as communal. This is because by doing so, they come across as virtuous. When they attack you in anger, they are saying, ‘Look, I am such a secular person that the mere mention of the word Hindu makes me mad. Look, I am so good and secular that any hint of a Hindu issue makes me seethe with anger. And now that I have shown I am more virtuous, I have the right to attack the others. My goodness gives me sanction to abuse, insult and be rude to anyone else who isn’t that virtuous.’

We sometimes mistakenly refer to these people in India as fake-liberals, pseudo-seculars or elitists. All they are doing is virtue signalling, showing how modern and progressive they are — so they look good to their virtual peers.

Hence, take a statement like, “Although we must have laws to protect women, some men are suffering due to fake domestic violence or fake harassment cases because some people are abusing the laws (something any lawyer or policeman dealing in such cases will attest).” Virtue signallers will jump on this and feast all day, calling it ‘sexist, anti-women, backward or whatever else’ because when you say that, you show that you are so equality-conscious.

Virtue signallers operate in many other arenas. They show their support for women’s cricket in their social feeds (though chances are they have never watched a women’s cricket match on TV in their lives).

Virtue signallers want to promote independent cinema over commercial cinema (though they don’t go and watch independent cinema in theatres). Virtue signallers want to show that they care about Dalits and Muslims, not because they actually care about Dalits and Muslims or do anything about it, but because stating so makes you look good on social media.

Beware of such utterly fake people, and avoid engaging in debate with them. They will tire and bore you to death with statements that don’t answer the issue at hand, but merely make them look good.

Virtue signalling is a reality of today’s social media. Because whenever we feel judged by a lot of people, we hide our true self and try to look good. It’s noise on the internet and, like trolls, must be ignored. We must debate issues by saying things as they are, for only then can a solution be found.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...he-rise-of-virtue-signallers-on-social-media/
 
.
Back
Top Bottom