Hinduphobic Bollywood

[Muloghonto]

On 11/14/2018 at 9:51 PM, cricketrulez said:

If the purpose bollywood is social enigineering, hell yes we do. If they show a selective bias while claiming to be neutral, hell yes we do. 

Nope. Again, your logicall fallacy is that of ' unless you can prosecute every rapist, its unfair to prosecute me for rape'. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:51 PM, cricketrulez said:

 

When you have prime minister (MMS) announcing "minorities have first right to resources" to justify discrimination against hindus, hell yes we do.

Irrelevant strawman argument. MMS is not bollywood. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:51 PM, cricketrulez said:

Brahmins are 3% of the countries population, does it mean that they get to have first crack at resources?

 

you want evils of religion to go away, look to the examples of scandinavia. adopt their policies, religion wil rot away. Personally i can't wait

Indeed. Which means axing RSS influence in BJP, Muslim/Christian influence in Congress. 

[cricketrulez]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. Again, your logicall fallacy is that of ' unless you can prosecute every rapist, its unfair to prosecute me for rape'. 

Irrelevant strawman argument. MMS is not bollywood. 

Indeed. Which means axing RSS influence in BJP, Muslim/Christian influence in Congress. 

• Its called selective prosecution. If a established patetrn can be provem yeah. it will be called out. similar to black being prosecutted for silly stuff in US.

 

• nope its not. MMS is not bollywood. he was the *ing chief executive and him and his party are in cahoots with bollywood.

 

• finally we agree on something. So lets start with uniform civil code.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

• Its called selective prosecution. If a established patetrn can be provem yeah. it will be called out. similar to black being prosecutted for silly stuff in US.

Not similar, since black being prosecuted in the US has socio-economic roots in slavery and dominance of the incumbent majority over the minority. Pointing out the ills of majoritarian society- such as ills of Caste system, is not persecution of minorities or the powerless, it is reformation of society.

 

Your argument of why there are no muslim/christian call-outs, is legitimate, however, it does not invalidate the observations of the ills within majoritarian religion. Infact, i'd say Bollywood is obligated to show more hindu problems than any other problems if there is a moral compass claim, since the fundamental to social progress always lies in a wider target audience. 

9 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

• nope its not. MMS is not bollywood. he was the *ing chief executive and him and his party are in cahoots with bollywood.

LOL. Bollywood makes what bollywood thinks will make $$. If Congress/BJP churns the religious-political landscape, thats what Bollywood will make movies about, to make $$. Take your 'cahoots' social engineering conspiracy theory nonsense to people who are actually conspiracy theory lovers (hint: mostly the radical left and radical right). 

9 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

• finally we agree on something. So lets start with uniform civil code.

Sure. If you read my posts on this forum, i am the one who is most staunchly in favor of absolute secularism of the government, with only consession of government being influenced by religions are the practicalities of majorly popular public holidays that are socio-religious ( Julio-Claudian new years, diwali, durga puja, pongal, etc. along with Eids & X-mas). 

 

[cricketrulez]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. They are not mutually exclusive concepts either. You can have social position accorded due to birth and lose it due to your actions. 

Sure. Still your example is nepotism and not fit to be upheld as an ideal. Same with the jati/varna/caste system. 

How am i running from definition of a symptom. I am not disputing what is a symptom or not- i am asking you to first discuss that the symptom exists. 

I think churches and mosques should also be controlled by the government. 

I didn't run away from anything. I said caste system is a socio-religious one. It has social AND religious component to it. Many things that are espoused by religions end up in social fabric of society - it does not take away from religious nature of it. Plenty of atheists celebrate Christmas - not in the 'lets sing hymns to Jesus' but get togethers, dinners, presents etc. Ie, that is a social aspect of Christmas, which has its roots in religion. Same with caste system. 

False. It has everything to do with religion. Hindu religion decisively advocates caste system. Plenty of texts of the religion i can quote that says so.

 

You have spun yourself into a heaping mess. 

 

Can't make head or tail of your logic other than your insistence caste system by birth being codified in to hinduism, while the source i have posted clear state other wise. you have not posted anything which contradicts it.

 

and you have a problem with the closest to a merit system that exists with CEO example that I gave you.

 

whats your solution? coomunism?

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, cricketrulez said:

You have spun yourself into a heaping mess. 

More random judgement and dodging from you, with zero actual debating of the topic that hinduism as a religion has casteism in its literature. 

1 minute ago, cricketrulez said:

Can't make head or tail of your logic other than your insistence caste system by birth being codified in to hinduism, while the source i have posted clear state other wise. you have not posted anything which contradicts it.

Its very simple. My position is, birth assigned caste, existing, is an ill in society. Hinduism gives it. It being not totally lineage-wise fixed in theory (though in practice, all evidence ever, points towards it being fixed - including convergent commentary of both Buddhists and Jains on Vedic brahmanism), is irrelevant. 

 

This is a pretty simple piece of logic. 

1 minute ago, cricketrulez said:

 

and you have a problem with the closest to a merit system that exists with CEO example that I gave you.

Nope, because there is no merit system of CEO's son getting extra powers. Its the definition of a non-meritocratic advantage that is an ill in society when it is directly expressed vocationally. 

Its one thing being rich because your dad was rich.Its entirely another sort of ill that sees you shoe-horned into a high position technical job (of its times) because your daddy was the boss. This is how you get the laughable Rajputs riding horses with wooden stirrups while the Ghurid and Ghaznavids were riding horses with iron t-bar stirrups. Guess what they did not have ? Thats right- caste system dictating trades. 

Something almost all travellers of India have noted throughout the times. 

1 minute ago, cricketrulez said:

whats your solution? coomunism?

Absolutely not !!

Not supporting deep detrimental nepotism like caste system does not equate to communism. 

[cricketrulez]

42 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not similar, since black being prosecuted in the US has socio-economic roots in slavery and dominance of the incumbent majority over the minority. Pointing out the ills of majoritarian society- such as ills of Caste system, is not persecution of minorities or the powerless, it is reformation of society.

 

Your argument of why there are no muslim/christian call-outs, is legitimate, however, it does not invalidate the observations of the ills within majoritarian religion. Infact, i'd say Bollywood is obligated to show more hindu problems than any other problems if there is a moral compass claim, since the fundamental to social progress always lies in a wider target audience. 

LOL. Bollywood makes what bollywood thinks will make $$. If Congress/BJP churns the religious-political landscape, thats what Bollywood will make movies about, to make $$. Take your 'cahoots' social engineering conspiracy theory nonsense to people who are actually conspiracy theory lovers (hint: mostly the radical left and radical right). 

Sure. If you read my posts on this forum, i am the one who is most staunchly in favor of absolute secularism of the government, with only consession of government being influenced by religions are the practicalities of majorly popular public holidays that are socio-religious ( Julio-Claudian new years, diwali, durga puja, pongal, etc. along with Eids & X-mas). 

 

• Selectively pointing out it out and while ignoring government making laws/decisions such as shah bono case, religion based reservations is not reformation. It is political exploitation of a meek society. when is last time bollywwod made movie about the evils of triple talaq or for that matter anything negative about islam or christiantiy
• just becos you can't see it doesn't mean its not true
• Good, so campaign the SC to extend this gender equality ruling to all religions

Till then the burden is on you to prove that bollywood is not being hinduphobic

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by cricketrulez

[cricketrulez]

24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

More random judgement and dodging from you, with zero actual debating of the topic that hinduism as a religion has casteism in its literature. 

Its very simple. My position is, birth assigned caste, existing, is an ill in society. Hinduism gives it. It being not totally lineage-wise fixed in theory (though in practice, all evidence ever, points towards it being fixed - including convergent commentary of both Buddhists and Jains on Vedic brahmanism), is irrelevant. 

 

This is a pretty simple piece of logic. 

Nope, because there is no merit system of CEO's son getting extra powers. Its the definition of a non-meritocratic advantage that is an ill in society when it is directly expressed vocationally. 

Its one thing being rich because your dad was rich.Its entirely another sort of ill that sees you shoe-horned into a high position technical job (of its times) because your daddy was the boss. This is how you get the laughable Rajputs riding horses with wooden stirrups while the Ghurid and Ghaznavids were riding horses with iron t-bar stirrups. Guess what they did not have ? Thats right- caste system dictating trades. 

Something almost all travellers of India have noted throughout the times. 

Absolutely not !!

Not supporting deep detrimental nepotism like caste system does not equate to communism. 

You are talking about me debating? where is your counter to my sources? my source clearly states, status by brith is not a given. which invalidates your whole line of argument.

 

Rest of argument is a deck of card which falls apart.

 

prove that wrong, otherwise we will be going around in circles

 

 

[Muloghonto]

53 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

You are talking about me debating? where is your counter to my sources? my source clearly states, status by brith is not a given. which invalidates your whole line of argument.

False. Your sources CLEARLY state that caste at birth *is* given. It can change in certain circumstances, but it does assign caste at birth.

The quote ' a brahmin that displays his birth as caste, debases himself' is an admonition against pomposity, not denial of caste at birth. 
 

 

You can dodge all you wish, but it is a fact that hindu scripures are the ones that integrate status via birth and concept of status enshrined in religion, which causes the second-worst form of inherited inequality (second only to slavery) and is a major negative impact of hinduism to Indian society. 

 

There is direct correlation with caste system's power with popularity of hinduism historically as well. Both Buddhist and Jain literature specifically talk about inherited caste status as a major ill of vedic brahmanism.

 

The spread of Buddhism and Jainism in populism (which really spans the ~ 400s BC - 300s AD period) corresponds with relative flexibility in the caste system ( noted as rare, but present in the works of Faxian for eg, who visited around 300s AD - a period where Buddhism, Jainism & Hinduism were in major representation), all the while significantly getting rigid with the rise of Bhakti movement and ascendance of Hinduism as well. 
We have Buddhist monks who travel from Malay regions specifically point out this as well. 

 

So we have causational ( the hindu scriptures enshrining caste as a religious facet) as well as correlational evidence of Hinduism = root cause of caste system. 

 

The presence of caste in other communities in India is a symptom of hinduism's dominance of the cultural aspects of Indian life (where Hinduism/Vedic traditionalism was always the majoritarian view when all of Indian subcontinent is taken into account). 

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

58 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

• Selectively pointing out it out and while ignoring government making laws/decisions such as shah bono case, religion based reservations is not reformation. It is political exploitation of a meek society. when is last time bollywwod made movie about the evils of triple talaq or for that matter anything negative about islam or christiantiy

Again, government action is irrelevant obfuscation to the role in BOLLYWOOD. Stick to point and its now you who are exposing yourself getting into a terrible tangle trying to take on entertainment media and segwaying into government action. 

58 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

• just becos you can't see it doesn't mean its not true

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true either. 

58 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

• Good, so campaign the SC to extend this gender equality ruling to all religions

Till then the burden is on you to prove that bollywood is not being hinduphobic

 

It is not being hindu phobic, in the same way showing a terrorist jihadi movie is not being islam-phobic. It is depicting the true negative realities of Hinduism, not demonizing it. Ergo, nothing 'phobic'. Your argument aligns with muslims who want to ban all moves re: islamic terror as well. 

[cricketrulez]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Your sources CLEARLY state that caste at birth *is* given. It can change in certain circumstances, but it does assign caste at birth.

The quote ' a brahmin that displays his birth as caste, debases himself' is an admonition against pomposity, not denial of caste at birth. 
 

 

Looks liike you have serious comprehension issues. It also states that he can lose that status if he doesn't perform his duties where is the birth right here? similarly a unedacated man can educate himself and gain higher status and not be stuck in his birth status. Sounds pretty close to a merit system to me.

 

again the fact that you haven't quoted any sources till now tell me that you have empty deck.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

Looks liike you have serious comprehension issues. It also states that he can lose that status if he doesn't perform his duties where is the birth right here?

Sure. It doesn't change the fact that it is a religious literature that endorses classification of people based on birth initially. Aka, systematic discrimination religiously FROM the time of birth. A major failing of the religion. 

2 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

similarly a unedacated man can educate himself and gain higher status and not be stuck in his birth status. Sounds pretty close to a merit system to me.

Its still a system that talks OF classification of people, straight up, from the point of birth. Any system that does so, is majorly flawed and ignorant, period. It is also inferior to unclassified at birth, period. 

The reality, that YOU are not aware of, yet these authors should've been aware of, is that literacy in pre-printing press age ranged from ~ 5% to 10% of society. At best. So 90% of people are effectively, stuck in their caste. They cannot read, ergo, they cannot acquire knowledge in ANY OTHER MEANS EXCEPT APPRENTICESHIP. 

 

While in all other lands, this was true as much as in India, the inherent religious-defined nepotism of being born in caste is not present. 

2 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

again the fact that you haven't quoted any sources till now tell me that you have empty deck.

I am talking about your own sources. Nowhere is the implication that caste at birth = null. It talks about assigning caste from the moment being born.

De-facto, it is a self-propagating closed loop classification from birth. Which is a de-facto impediment towards improvement compared to null classification. 

[cricketrulez]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, government action is irrelevant obfuscation to the role in BOLLYWOOD. Stick to point and its now you who are exposing yourself getting into a terrible tangle trying to take on entertainment media and segwaying into government action. 

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true either. 

It is not being hindu phobic, in the same way showing a terrorist jihadi movie is not being islam-phobic. It is depicting the true negative realities of Hinduism, not demonizing it. Ergo, nothing 'phobic'. Your argument aligns with muslims who want to ban all moves re: islamic terror as well. 

Talk to me when Bollywood points out that islam advocates murder of non-believers and taking their wives and children as slaves and the bible preaches same exact thing. In fact bible advocates genocide.  till than bollywood will be called out for its selective targeting of hinduism. if pointing out quran is a evil document, burqa is oppressive and mohmmed isa  pedophile is islamphobic, boolywood actions are phobis. What is god for goose is good for the gander

 

I'm sure it is also a coincidence that govt and courts makes special laws and favoring muslims and xtians, and SC makes seeming secular verdicts Will trupti desai try to enter mosque with men?

 

 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

Talk to me when Bollywood points out that islam advocates murder of non-believers and taking their wives and children as slaves and the bible preaches same exact thing.

Nope. Because its a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the merit/demerit of pointing out ills of hinduism.

        

6 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

In fact bible advocates genocide.  till than bollywood will be called out for its selective targeting of hinduism. if pointing out quran is a evil document, burqa is oppressive and mohmmed isa  pedophile is islamphobic, boolywood actions are phobis. What is god for goose is good for the gander

selective targetting on ills does not make it phobic. You are yet to demonstrate any demonization of hinduism that is not in accordance to social practices. Ergo, it cannot be hindu-phobic, just like movies about killing jihadis in Hollywood are not Islamophobic. 

 

6 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

I'm sure it is also a coincidence that govt and courts makes special laws and favoring muslims and xtians, and SC makes seeming secular verdicts Will trupti desai try to enter mosque with men?

 

Again, obfuscation from BOLLYWOOD. Stick to topic of BOLLYWOOD. 

what legislation is passed or not passed by the governments is irrelevant to the charge of how BOLLYWOOD makes movies, since this is not a communist totalitarian dictatorship. 

 

You have tacitly admitted defeat on the 'hindu-phobic' angle and now your argument is revolving around proportional representation of Islamic/Christian violence. Which shall be addressed accordingly.

[cricketrulez]

37 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. It doesn't change the fact that it is a religious literature that endorses classification of people based on birth initially. Aka, systematic discrimination religiously FROM the time of birth. A major failing of the religion. 

Its still a system that talks OF classification of people, straight up, from the point of birth. Any system that does so, is majorly flawed and ignorant, period. It is also inferior to unclassified at birth, period. 

The reality, that YOU are not aware of, yet these authors should've been aware of, is that literacy in pre-printing press age ranged from ~ 5% to 10% of society. At best. So 90% of people are effectively, stuck in their caste. They cannot read, ergo, they cannot acquire knowledge in ANY OTHER MEANS EXCEPT APPRENTICESHIP. 

 

While in all other lands, this was true as much as in India, the inherent religious-defined nepotism of being born in caste is not present. 

I am talking about your own sources. Nowhere is the implication that caste at birth = null. It talks about assigning caste from the moment being born.

De-facto, it is a self-propagating closed loop classification from birth. Which is a de-facto impediment towards improvement compared to null classification. 

a closed loop? when people can move up and down based on their actions? seriously?

Edited November 17, 2018 by cricketrulez

[cricketrulez]

19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. Because its a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the merit/demerit of pointing out ills of hinduism.

        

selective targetting on ills does not make it phobic. You are yet to demonstrate any demonization of hinduism that is not in accordance to social practices. Ergo, it cannot be hindu-phobic, just like movies about killing jihadis in Hollywood are not Islamophobic. 

 

Again, obfuscation from BOLLYWOOD. Stick to topic of BOLLYWOOD. 

what legislation is passed or not passed by the governments is irrelevant to the charge of how BOLLYWOOD makes movies, since this is not a communist totalitarian dictatorship. 

 

You have tacitly admitted defeat on the 'hindu-phobic' angle and now your argument is revolving around proportional representation of Islamic/Christian violence. Which shall be addressed accordingly.

We are going in circles.

 

Bollywood is selective in which religion it targets. do you agree or disagree?

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

a closed loop? when people can move up and down based on their actions? seriously?

De-facto closed loop. Do you understand the difference between de-facto and de-jure ?

You are arguing that a system works, when it assigns inferiority/superiority AT birth, just because it allows advancement via 'acquiring knowledge', in a society that is ~5-10% literate is classic sophistry.

 

Any system that assigns a person's class AT birth, is by default, an inferior system than that which does not by any practical workings of it. Assigning birth-right to higher classes produces nepotism. Whilst this is true amongst the elites either way, at the very least, a caste/jati-less society has bulk majority people (ie, the non-elites) not automatically handicapped by birth status. 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

We are going in circles.

 

Bollywood is selective in which religion it targets. do you agree or disagree?

No, we are not. I am addressing the 'Hindu-phobic' charge you've laid. 

The requirement for it to be hindu-phobic, is to depict hinduism in a fashion that is NOT true or slanderous. Akin to how we CAN show entertainment pieces that are phobic to given demographics by specifically depicting them falsely AND negatively. 

If Bollywood is hindu-phobic, because it depicts the ills of Hinduism as the only criteria, then you must agree that Hollywood is Islamophobic by making movies about muslim terrorists being the bad guys. This is basic consistency. 

 

[cricketrulez]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

De-facto closed loop. Do you understand the difference between de-facto and de-jure ?

You are arguing that a system works, when it assigns inferiority/superiority AT birth, just because it allows advancement via 'acquiring knowledge', in a society that is ~5-10% literate is classic sophistry.

So your hang up is that there is no equitable mechanism of social movement?

[cricketrulez]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No, we are not. I am addressing the 'Hindu-phobic' charge you've laid. 

The requirement for it to be hindu-phobic, is to depict hinduism in a fashion that is NOT true or slanderous. Akin to how we CAN show entertainment pieces that are phobic to given demographics by specifically depicting them falsely AND negatively. 

If Bollywood is hindu-phobic, because it depicts the ills of Hinduism as the only criteria, then you must agree that Hollywood is Islamophobic by making movies about muslim terrorists being the bad guys. This is basic consistency. 

 

Yes, if holywood ignores issues with Xtianty and selectively targets islam, than yes. That hasn't been the case. What were you saying about strawman?

 

Once again, show me one movie from bollywood where it takes on issues with islam or xtianity. 

[Muloghonto]

26 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

Yes, if holywood ignores issues with Xtianty and selectively targets islam, than yes. That hasn't been the case. What were you saying about strawman?

 

Once again, show me one movie from bollywood where it takes on issues with islam or xtianity. 

so you argument is about selective targetting. That is not the same as being hindu-phobic, as being hindu-phobic would require slander of hinduism instead of real focus on the real ills.

By your standards, is hollywood islamophobic due to making movies about jihadis ? yes/no please.