Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    81d 11h 17m 50s

Tibarn last won the day on September 30 2016

Tibarn had the most liked content!


About Tibarn

  • Rank
    Tel Carrier

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Cricket, Basketball, Video Games, Ecology, Sociobiology, Zoology

Recent Profile Visitors

9,934 profile views
  1. This guy is correct on these parts: This is one of the dumbest ideas ever. Marriage as a contract This statement is also ridiculous and has no basis. Bhagwat is talking out of his arse when he makes statements like those above. However, this part shows how dense this guy is as well: Some people will never stop being Dhimmis. Read an actual book on the history of Islam and Christianity in India and around the world before vomiting nonsense.
  2. Tibarn

    Mascots of IPL teams

    Agree I am wondering why CSK didn't adopt Anaconda already, the marketing is done by everyone on the forum with Dhoniconda
  3. Crows/Fishing Cats can do it in singles now
  4. I'm happy Gill is playing well, but I wanted the Pigeons to defeat the Crows Pigeons need a magic over from either Shami or Curran to win from here.
  5. Tibarn

    Who is a Liberal ?

    This is inaccurate, IMO: The original "liberals" are Classical Liberals(Classical Liberalism), who believe in minimum but necessary taxation for those essential services which the deem are in the justifiable role of the government: military, police, infrastructure etc. Essentially those which they view as what allows society to function and to allow for individuals to achieve their happiness (utilitarianism). I was trying to use the term "liberals" to refer to them. They are the basis of the definition as they are the founders of the ideology in of Liberalism in a political/philosophical sense. Libertarians are a more extreme version, in a sense, of Classical Liberals where they differ in viewing even less of a role for government in the function of society: some Libertarians would privatize everything from infrastructure to police/fire departments out of the power of government. They view the role of government to be even less, but they still view it as existent. In general terms, Libertarians still view the government as having a role in enforcing property rights, adjudicating disputes, etc: basically providing a basic legal framework and enforcing it at some level. The Classical Liberals and Libertarians vary only in degree, with the latter being more extreme in their interpretation, but the former being the "pure" version. Anarchists are fundamentally outside of this continuum: they don't believe in a government at all. Therefore, they fall outside of the realm of political Liberalism. One could say that only Anarchists truly believe in maximizing individual freedom by maximizing government non-interference in individual lives(setting it to 0 by removing the existence of a government), but I don't think it accurately falls into the philosophy of Liberalism as the originators of the philosophy never intended for government to disappear in its entirety, only for its power and scope to be limited to the benefit of individual happiness. Anarchists belong in their own category external to Liberalism: with the starting point being the absence of government rather than the maximization of individual rights/freedoms( as is the basis of Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism). From that tree, of absence of government, one gets all the branches of Anarchism: Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, etc etc. The basis of the my definition of conservative and liberal, in the Dharmic sense, is based off of a definition of "conservative" as "traditional"/"original" in Hindu society. From my reading, Nationalism and Deep Ecology are deeply ingrained in Hindu society. Therefore, those two ideas are starting points for any conservatism in a Hindu sense. Movement away from Nationalism and Deep Ecology would be a liberal, ie "change", position in terms of Hindu/Dharmic society. To illustrate better what I am trying to say I will use Islam and Hinduism in comparison here: Islam is inherently globalist/universalist (spread the Ummah and Caliphate to the entire world and Islam is the perfect and True religion for all people, regardless of their being Indian/African/Chinese, etc etc). If one were to follow Islam purely, there would be no nation in the first place, IIRC there is a specific verse I read that condemns nations as Shirk. From the above, an Islamic society, one based on Islam/Mohammed, would, at its starting point try to "conserve" a globalized world, under the Caliph of Islam, as the traditional Islamic view of how society is to be organized. A liberal, or change position, would be to divide the globe into nations/countries, which is explicitly shirk in Islam. Taking the above purely on the basis of nationalism : ISIS/pre-US invasion Afghanistan are true conservative Islamic societies, where there is no loyalty to country, but rather fighting for the expansion/glory of Islam (remember: pre-US invasion Afghanistan had Jihadis as fighters for Al-Qaeda from across the Islamic world, not purely Afghan groups). On this issue, a country like Bakistan is actually a liberal Islamic country (oh the irony ) as they are moving away from what is traditionally Islamic: shunning of nations/countries. Again, for Hinduism, Nationalism and Deep Ecology are ingrained in its philosophy and therefore are "conservative". Movements away from that, such as Universalism or unrestrained exploitation of the environment/living out of sync with the environment are "liberal" ~ "change" positions. Deep Ecology =/= Ecology. The former is much deeper than what most people support as Ecology. There is no question of monopoly here, as most people, I would wager, aren't solely conservative/liberal on most issues. People are just mixed bags of what they "think"/believe and then label themselves liberal/conservative, right/left, etc etc based off what appeals to them more. Using my articulation of a Dharmic perspective above: a person can be "conservative" by supporting Deep Ecology, but "liberal" by supporting universalization of Indian values. Other examples are Muslim Feminists and Gay Republicans (I actually met a Gay, Drag Queen Christian the other week ). People will always pick and choose what they like from whichever basket; I hardly expect them to neatly fit into solid categories of "conservative" and "liberal". Sure it does (although, again, I said it is arguable not defining), if the basis of defining Dharmic conservatism is what is "traditional", then a Dharmic monarchy is pretty traditional. The arguable portion comes into this when someone like Ambedkar argued, after finding the existence of Republics in pre-Islamic Bharat, that Hindu civilization has very old experience with the Republic-based form of government as well. This is why either form can't be exclusively defined as "conservative" or "liberal" from a Dharmic perspective. Those two caveats don't rule it out though. Divine agency or elitist agency aren't in and of themselves bad necessarily, and they, if they were the basis for traditional government formation in society, would be a conservative position for the formation of a monarchical government. That is arguable due to many issues: There are those that argue that merit doesn't actually exist. There are those that selectively use the term merit when convenient. There are those that view a society based on merit as inherently discriminatory. There are those who argue discrimination when the results of meritocracy aren't to their liking. Divine right and/or elitist agency themselves can be viewed as merit in some people's eyes. (Whether others disagree or agree is a different story). Selection of government also doesn't necessarily affect the rest of society or reflect its organization. An example: Ancient China where the bureaucratic system was meritocratic, but the government head was an emperor. One can compare it to Republican India where, in many fields/sectors, birth caste or religion influence outcomes more than ability/achievement. This is despite India having the largest democratic exercise in human history every time it elects a prime minister. Neither does lacking meritocracy in one sector, preclude another sector from having meritocracy: the Indian IT industry is very meritocratic, but the Judiciary and Bollywood are hereditary fiefdoms. Some of the problem comes from the somewhat fuzzy definition Meritocracy is more accurately, at least based on the above definition of merit, IMO, defined as having a set of consistent standards within a field/sector so that the most qualified in that field/sector, based on those set standards, advances to higher positions on the ladder. See way above. Also, in case there is conflation here between the words "conservative"/"liberal" and the actual political philosophy of Liberalism. There is a reason I am trying to use a big "L" and small "l" in my posts(although I should have probably made it more clear what I was talking about). The words "liberal" and "conservative" are relative to the cultures, broad or specific, from which they originate. This is why, as I showed earlier, the same belief can be conservative or liberal depending on where it comes from. The importance is the distinction between little "l" and big "L". I doubt anyone, barring a selective few, are solely in the "liberal" or "conservative" buckets. Most likely you are a mixed bag of both, regardless of ratio. There is an added complexity here because you are torn between two world: Canada and India, so your supporting one thing could be "conservative" in India and "liberal" in Canada at the same time (and vice versa). Based on the Western-perspective, from whatever I remember you saying before, you aren't a big "L" Liberal, ie, a follower of Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, although, IIRC, you said you were once a Libertarian in college. You are more of a Statist, right or left is a different axis, as opposed to a Liberal. Not really, Left parties are the farthest away from both Classical Liberal and Libertarian values in India. They are phony Liberals.
  6. Partly, His form is his form. He can surely get form in ODIs( or Tests) afterwards, and I hardly want him dropped, but, as a player who displayed some good performances in ODIs before the IPL, including some good cameos (at least from memory), I expected him to have a breakout IPL. He may end up being like Dhawan in being weak in T20s but strong in ODIs. Either way, it is TBD.
  7. Tibarn

    Mascots of IPL teams

    I am predicting another Wolves/BlueFish vs Black Panther/Yellow Tang showdown in the IPL final Wolves Black Panthers
  8. Tibarn

    Easter bomb blasts in Sri Lanka

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sri-lanka-mistook-indian-alert-as-bid-to-create-rift-with-islamabad/articleshow/69122777.cms Sanghis spreading their divisive agenda internationally
  9. I would rather have Jadhav or Rahul or maybe slide down Rohit so Rahul could open than Rayudu in a scenario where Shankar at 4 is abandoned.
  10. Tibarn

    Who is a Liberal ?

    Liberal is a positive word in lexicon of the current global "intellectual" zeitgeist, therefore seemingly everyone, no matter how illiberal their ideology/thoughts/individual beliefs are, will try to appropriate the term. The true liberals on the planet are the same as when Liberalism as an overarching philosophy was invented, during the Enlightenment era in Europe: Classical Liberals and Libertarians(these two only differ in degree of adherence, not on fundamental principles of ideology). The summarized version is non-interference in neither economic nor social lives of individuals. The last word is the key: everyone should be judged, treated, policed, legislated etc etc as individuals, not communities or other groups(sex, income, "race", "gender"). These people are hardly 5% of even Western populations, and I am being generous and overestimating their numbers here. Everyone who doesn't follow that, is either a Rightist or a Leftist: no ifs, ands, or buts. Conservative, in this case, applies to both Right and Left groups, so long as they are in opposition to Liberal policies, ie: supporting Welfare states, Community based laws etc etc are illiberal. The only political party approaching liberal status in India is the one floated by Jayprakash Narayan of Lok Satta Party (Hyderabad). Everyone else is a poser/ dhongee liberal. ^That is from a Western-centric-globalized perspective. (I am neither endorsing nor condemning it). If I were to give my opinion on what would be a Dharmic perspective. The core of Dharmic "conservatism" would be Nationalism, Deep Ecology, and arguably Dharmic Monarchism. The last one is arguable, the first two are not. Branching off of that definition, any native type liberalism would have to be in direct opposition to those three pillars. One can add traditional social structure to this as well. Edited to clarify some stuff
  11. Gujju clutch gene by Pervert Pandya
  12. Yeah, he is a new player, but he looked like a good prospect before the IPL started. Since then, not so much.
  13. Looks like Shankar has lost all his form this IPL, he should be out there with Pandeyji. It may have been premature to include him in the WC squad.
  14. Tibarn

    Game of Thrones Season 8 Official Trailer

    "The Long Night " was one night What a sh*t-show Edit Side note: Cersei is one of my 5 favorite characters on the show, maybe even top 3, so I hope she wins in the end (I know she won't), but she deserves to be the Final Boss of the series, if only because they ruined The Night King
  15. Bumrah ruined it with the last two balls.

Guest, sign in to access all features.