Comments on: Our national pastime – ‘demanding an apology’

By: Feminism « Manish's Tech Blog

Feminism « Manish's Tech Blog — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:03:05 +0000

[...] by uttering something which is not well received by a few Feminine Geeks. First I thought that ‘asking for apology’ is only my country’s national pastime, but probably it’s [...]

By: Khan’t get past security » Needlessly Messianic

Khan’t get past security » Needlessly Messianic — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:25:39 +0000

[...] then, Shah Rukh Khan gets stopped at for further questioning at Newark airport and the rabble-rabble crowd is getting ready to hold protest demonstrations near the Parliament. Me? I find the situation [...]

By: Ankur

Ankur — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:21:39 +0000

Whether it’s moral or ethical or ‘tasteful’ to say something is different from whether they should be allowed to say it. While Varun Gandhi has the right to say whatever he wants, whether it was ethical for a national political leader to alienate a section of the populace is a different issue. The BJP did learn its lesson that a hardline Hindutva stance is not working. Similarly, Holocaust deniers can say what they want – it’s for everyone else to realize it’s a retarded idea because there’s strong historical evidence to support the Holocaust.

Do not confuse terrorism, murder, genocide and other crimes for what falls under freedom of speech. It’s a crime to kill some, it’s a crime to incite a mob towards violence, it’s a crime to discriminate racially. It is NOT a crime to show a Hindu goddess on underwear or a burger ad. This kind of arm-twisting is nothing but a sort of moral policing or vigilantism.

By: Arjun

Arjun — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:07:02 +0000

But what about more controversial items? What about Varun Gandhi’s hate speech against Muslims? Is communalism pardonable? What about Holocaust denial? Numerous persons mock the very idea of a Holocaust, refuse to recognize the fact that over 6 million people were killed by a genocidal regime and essentially label the atrocity as a Jewish myth. Can this be condoned?

Through the preceeding rhetorical questions, I am trying to accentuate this point: Expression IS and SHOULD be restricted. There should be little compromise on issues such as murder, genocide, communalism, racism and hatred. Commercial campaigns and art fade into the realm of frivolity when compared with such serious topics.

If you start using abusive language in public, you should be arrested. If you propagate lewd material, you should be punished. If you support terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians, you should be condemned. Rights and freedoms are not with strictures.

By: Ankur

Ankur — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:33:16 +0000

My views on why religion cannot be put on a higher pedestal are summed up by this interview Douglas Adams gave to American Atheists. Do read it up. I agree with DNA's opinion that religion should be subject to all the adulation, scrutiny etc that other fields have - also including ridicule and parody. If someone is a Muslim they are free to follow whatever rules they make up about not showing their Prophet, but they CANNOT enforce the same rules on me.

By: Arjun

Arjun — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:30:39 +0000

Uh, remove the last few ‘and’s and replace them with ‘as’. Ouch…..

By: Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:01:27 +0000

First of all, this was a great article.

However, I will offer you this example (real-life). You probably remember the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad. Quite frankly, I found these caricatures to be quite crass and obtuse. For example, one caricature showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. Blantant disrespect, in my opinion. It associated Islam with terrorism and the fanatics who murder others ‘in the name of God’. Such cartoons belie the ignorance of Islam that omnipresent in Western countries, particularly the USA. It’s just not right. It’s not prudent, it’s not facetious or amusing, and it’s not appropriate.

Freedom of Speech, no doubt, is paramount and absolute. However, it should not be recklessly abused and misused. There are limits and standards of decency that should be followed.

Somewhere, there should be a line, in my humble opinion. Naturally, it is impossible to satisfy or placate everyone. Everyday, we, inadvertently or not, do something that might be construed by others as blasphemous. However, we should try (I repeat, TRY) to respect the sentiments of others. We shouldn’t go around drawing stupid cartoons, using deities in lewd ways, etc. I don’t think you can condone such behavior. Simultaneously, we should ignore and turn and blind eye to incidents that might be construed and transgressions of decorum.

Jus live and let live.

By: Ankur

Ankur — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:13:26 +0000

Very friendly gods too, I see, to forgive people if they take down ads or take a dip in the Ganga to wash off a life of sin and debauchery.

By: Espèra

Espèra — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:37:46 +0000

Perhaps. I’m just speculating. Do these people come across as rational beings to you?
More likely than not, they have been unreligious all their lives and see this as the perfect opportunity to please them gods.

By: Double standards on reservations » Needlessly Messianic

Double standards on reservations » Needlessly Messianic — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:36:38 +0000

[...] Times caught my attention today. Ties in nicely with the theme of discussions happening earlier on Indians being to sensitive and demanding apologies for everything. The premise of the editorial is that Indian ‘liberals’ indulge in double standards [...]