How much abuse would Siraj and Akash Deep have copped if we had narrowly lost Oval?

[Lord]

7 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

Clear eg. of where education has failed someone and they confuse irrational emoting with cognition ie what every brainlet libtard suffers from in abundance. You should learn what appeasement means first before bothering to spout rank nonsense. One look at public schemes and who avails them as a % of the population if you want to know who is being appeased and how certain communities have been depicted in pop culture esp is enough to blow what you are trying to claim to smithereens without any more digging. Most of what you described as 'progress' among Hindus did not come at the behest of any govt intervention at giving them a leg up, it happened despite just like certain communities remaining backward happened despite every attempt at bending over backwards to pamper and placate them even after they said they want a separate country and cannot live with anyone who belongs to any other religion. The fact that nation wide pogroms and cleansing didn't take place based on that 1 aspect of history alone is itself evidence of a massive industrial level brainwashing that had to be perpetrated on a whole population to whitewash a fact of history regardless of it's merits. 

 

It is not discrimination if you enforce what you want to inside your own private property btw ie if for eg you do not want to give your house to someone or do not want to allow someone in it is entirely a natural right and a prerogative which no state can intercede in and this goes for groups/communities too. You cannot demand Muslims serve non-halal food and claim it is discrimination. Consider this the one new thing you learnt today.

 

That is a grey area. Would you support the restaurant here?

 

 

One will naturally feel discriminated if they get excluded based on who they are/what they wear etc while doing nothing wrong themselves.

[rollingstoned]

8 hours ago, Lord said:

 

That is a grey area. Would you support the restaurant here?

 

 

One will naturally feel discriminated if they get excluded based on who they are/what they wear etc while doing nothing wrong themselves.

I don't support the move but it is upto the restaurant and those who go there to not patronise them for something like this, some amount of common sense needs to prevail. There is no sense in barring anyone wearing Indian attire in a place like India just like it would not make sense to ban anyone wearing the traditional Arab dress in the middle east, you don't need a law/constitution to tell people not to take an axe to their own foot lol.

What night clubs do is not against the law too tho it is understandably discriminatory ie not allowing those whose attire they don't think is upto the mark or refusing single men entry. 

You cannot otoh go into an Italian restaurant and say you feel it is discrimination if they will not serve you idli sambar.

[Ultimate_Game]

8 hours ago, Lord said:

 

That is a grey area. Would you support the restaurant here?

 

 

One will naturally feel discriminated if they get excluded based on who they are/what they wear etc while doing nothing wrong themselves.

 

What bullshyte is this?! Never heard of such a thing ever. What's happening to India? This restaurant deserves to be boycotted and a lawsuit filed against it for discrimination.

[Ultimate_Game]

10 hours ago, Gollum said:

This is what I don't understand.

 

Venting/ranting is understandable when we lose. But why when we win? Who thought we could win that when they were 330/4? 

 

Compared to NZ and Aus series, this was a positive result for us, with many youngsters/rookies doing well, team showing that it could win in the absence of our biggest weapons like Pant, Bumrah, Kuldeep. 

 

Sab meri gaaliyon ka asar hai 

[Mariyam]

 

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

What bullshyte is this?! Never heard of such a thing ever. What's happening to India? This restaurant deserves to be boycotted and a lawsuit filed against it for discrimination.

You are using the D word quite liberally.

 

A dress code is about respecting the space or its vibe. A restaurant is a place you go to enjoy a meal not to publicly reaffirm your identity. I do not condone the action of the restaurant, but they are well within their rights to deny entry.

 

Also, as a private entity I *can* discriminate.  Now you can call it discrimination or discretion. Take your lexical pick.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2025 by Mariyam

[Ultimate_Game]

7 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

You are using the D word quite liberally.

 

A dress code is about respecting the space or its vibe. A restaurant is a place you go to enjoy a meal not to publicly reaffirm your identity. I do not condone the action of the restaurant, but they are well within their rights to deny entry.

 

Also, as a private entity I *can* discriminate.  Now you can call it discrimination or discretion. Take your lexical pick.

 

 

 

I hear what you're saying but restaurants or retail should not be able to turn down customer based on how one is dressed, religion, caste, gender, language etc. Unless one is acting in an unruly fashion (say obscenely dressed or disturbing others etc.), there needs to be a stricter standard for refusing to serve a customer.

[Lord]

13 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

I don't support the move but it is upto the restaurant and those who go there to not patronise them for something like this, some amount of common sense needs to prevail. There is no sense in barring anyone wearing Indian attire in a place like India just like it would not make sense to ban anyone wearing the traditional Arab dress in the middle east, you don't need a law/constitution to tell people not to take an axe to their own foot lol.

What night clubs do is not against the law too tho it is understandably discriminatory ie not allowing those whose attire they don't think is upto the mark or refusing single men entry. 

You cannot otoh go into an Italian restaurant and say you feel it is discrimination if they will not serve you idli sambar.

Ofcourse nothing against the law. But the same private property argument applies here. 

[rollingstoned]

17 minutes ago, Lord said:

Ofcourse nothing against the law. But the same private property argument applies here. 

It doesn't as it is not the same as this case above. What he said and I was responding to was something else. In quasi-public places like restaurants unlike say your own home or housing societies, you can always use sm outrage and bad publicity to punish the establishment and put pressure on them. 

[Lord]

20 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

It doesn't as it is not the same as this case above. What he said and I was responding to was something else. In quasi-public places like restaurants unlike say your own home or housing societies, you can always use sm outrage and bad publicity to punish the establishment and put pressure on them. 

Punish for what? Nothing is illegal there right? 

[BacktoCricaddict]

[rollingstoned]

10 hours ago, Lord said:

Punish for what? Nothing is illegal there right? 

Public unki le rahi hai na online? Business affect hoga. 

[Lord]

2 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

Public unki le rahi hai na online? Business affect hoga. 

These days people do anything for negative publicity too. Who knows even these couple are paid 

 

Bigger point is do we allow anything in name of private property. There has to be some laws /guidelines 

 

 

[Chaos]

41 minutes ago, Lord said:

These days people do anything for negative publicity too. Who knows even these couple are paid 

 

Bigger point is do we allow anything in name of private property. There has to be some laws /guidelines 

 

 

What private property. There is nothing called privacy. They will just barge or walk right in even when u go pooping in five star hotels . I still remember, when i was young and had to pee in india, i would go in freedom right next to highway and do it. I thought it was funny and i was sprinkler for plants. But now i look back and old adults pull their pants down n his thing out doing it… its just our culture in india to be freeeee

[rollingstoned]

1 hour ago, Lord said:

These days people do anything for negative publicity too. Who knows even these couple are paid 

 

Bigger point is do we allow anything in name of private property. There has to be some laws /guidelines 

 

 

Shame is downstream from public sensibilities & broadly shared values, it works better than any legislation which can only be complicated and create a slippery slope, especially with our rent seeking babudom.

 

 

[New guy]

On 8/8/2025 at 3:51 PM, rollingstoned said:

Clear eg. of where education has failed someone and they confuse irrational emoting with cognition ie what every brainlet libtard suffers from in abundance. You should learn what appeasement means first before bothering to spout rank nonsense. One look at public schemes and who avails them as a % of the population if you want to know who is being appeased and how certain communities have been depicted in pop culture esp is enough to blow what you are trying to claim to smithereens without any more digging. Most of what you described as 'progress' among Hindus did not come at the behest of any govt intervention at giving them a leg up, it happened despite just like certain communities remaining backward happened despite every attempt at bending over backwards to pamper and placate them even after they said they want a separate country and cannot live with anyone who belongs to any other religion. The fact that nation wide pogroms and cleansing didn't take place based on that 1 aspect of history alone is itself evidence of a massive industrial level brainwashing that had to be perpetrated on a whole population to whitewash a fact of history regardless of it's merits. 

 

It is not discrimination if you enforce what you want to inside your own private property btw ie if for eg you do not want to give your house to someone or do not want to allow someone in it is entirely a natural right and a prerogative which no state can intercede in and this goes for groups/communities too. You cannot demand Muslims serve non-halal food and claim it is discrimination. Consider this the one new thing you learnt today.

British had polices banning dogs and Indians from PRIVATE hotels and restaurants and that was ok with you right?

 

If tomorrow all western countries ban Indians from their private places it's ok with you right?

 

You seem to have the brains to differentiate between growth organically vs with goverment healp but you don't have the brains to connect the dots here.

 

Majorities will always grow organically without government help because they are majority and human beings are social creatures. Its simple common sense, people always help their own and promote their own, even if subconsciously.

 

Its the marginalized who would need help to move up. Who are poor, or left behind or simply didn't grow organically.

 

Whether you like it or not Muslims and other religions are as much a part of India and anyone else and no country can ever grow without growing their marginalized.

 

The difference between you and me is that I consider every single citizen indian regardless of caste, religion, language or culture. And I want them to grow and thrive. You don't, for you you only consider Hindus (and in that upper classes) as Indians whereas you have nothing but hatred for everyone else

 

 

The irony that you pointed out that Pakistan was based on one religion hating everyone else but yourself spouting nothing but exact same hate is lost on you. Its ok for a large section of population to be left behind as long as they are muslims is very telling. India flourished because it was liberal, Pakistan failed as it was based on majority religion supremacy

 

You have the same mentality, you hate liberals and hate other religions. 

 

You don't love your country, you use your pseudo patriotism to spread hatred 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2025 by New guy

[New guy]

15 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

It doesn't as it is not the same as this case above. What he said and I was responding to was something else. In quasi-public places like restaurants unlike say your own home or housing societies, you can always use sm outrage and bad publicity to punish the establishment and put pressure on them. 

So veg only restuarants can be punished right? Because they exclude the majority?

[New guy]

2 hours ago, Lord said:

These days people do anything for negative publicity too. Who knows even these couple are paid 

 

Bigger point is do we allow anything in name of private property. There has to be some laws /guidelines 

 

 

He knows it's not just private places, entire streets, communities, places, areas don't give house or employment to different religions (and this goes both ways) and some even ban non veg people. We have GOVERNMENT mandated days where non veg food is banned because Gandhi was a vegetarian Gujarati. There are entire towns and villages where non veg food is banned. Reliance has banned non veg from all its super markets

 

The ones who shout the loudest because they believe Muslims get some preferential laws about talak are quiet that a minority of veg have been holding the country hostage by minority veg, entire town and villages banning non veg, government mandating veg days, Huge corporation like reliance banning non veg from world wide stores, entire regions in big cities not giving house or work to non veg

 

 

Like every hateful bigot, @rollingstoned point is that discrimination is ok as long as who he likes is doing the discrimination. Also poor people should only be helped by government policies if they belong to his religion.

 

I am still waiting for the list of what policies exactly help Muslims over Hindus 

 

Edited August 10, 2025 by New guy

[rkt.india]

Siraj-akashdeep k thread me restaurant kahan se ghus gaya!

[singhvivek141]

8 minutes ago, New guy said:

He knows it's not just private places, entire streets, communities, places, areas don't give house or employment to differenr religions  (and this goes both ways) and some even ban non veg people. We have GOVERNMENT mandated days where non veg food is banned because Gandhi was a vegetarian Gujarati.

 

Like every hateful bigot, @rollingstoned point is that discrimination is ok as long as who he likes is doing the discrimination. Also poor people should only be helped by government policies if they belong to his religion.

 

I am still waiting for the list of what policies exactly help Muslims over Hindus 

 

1. Article 30, which gives Muslims and other minorities an autonomy.It excludes them to have provisions like resevations for scheduled communities (which though even ST's proclaim). https://ilsijlm.indianlegalsolution.com/right-of-minorities-to-establish-educational-institutions-under-the-indian-constitution-a-critical-analysis-akshita-jain/.
2. Targeted schemes like Nai Manzil and Nai Roshni https://www.nextias.com/blog/nai-roshni/
3. Separate religious boards giving them complete control over their religious monuments https://lawstreet.co/speak-legal/secularism-religious-endowment-hindu-temples/

4. Draconian Waqf Board https://minorityaffairs.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTF1984/1743661361.pdf

5. Hindu Marriage Act and Sharia, one considers marriage as "Sacrament", for other it's a "Contract".
6. Inheritence, Hindus have equal rights for sons and daughters, Islamic inheritence means sons typically inherit twice the share of daughters https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/india-hindu-and-muslim-law-of-succession-key-differences-65637

There might be more.

[New guy]

11 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

1. Article 30, which gives Muslims and other minorities an autonomy.It excludes them to have provisions like resevations for scheduled communities (which though even ST's proclaim). https://ilsijlm.indianlegalsolution.com/right-of-minorities-to-establish-educational-institutions-under-the-indian-constitution-a-critical-analysis-akshita-jain/.
2. Targeted schemes like Nai Manzil and Nai Roshni https://www.nextias.com/blog/nai-roshni/
3. Separate religious boards giving them complete control over their religious monuments https://lawstreet.co/speak-legal/secularism-religious-endowment-hindu-temples/

4. Draconian Waqf Board https://minorityaffairs.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTF1984/1743661361.pdf

5. Hindu Marriage Act and Sharia, one considers marriage as "Sacrament", for other it's a "Contract".
6. Inheritence, Hindus have equal rights for sons and daughters, Islamic inheritence means sons typically inherit twice the share of daughters https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/india-hindu-and-muslim-law-of-succession-key-differences-65637

There might be more.

So most of this is because of their religion, it's not really helping their community at all and most of these doesn't help them grow economically or in other ways.

 

The intent behind is to make sure they preserve their religions amd its not oppressed and many countries have similar laws (some countries allow hijabs, others ban it for example) and not just religion but many countries have different such laws helping to preserve minorities , eg both US and Australia have laws favoring native people 

 

None of these really help them grow  anyways so I don't understand the outrage 

 

If you take my opinion, we should move on from all these and try to come up with something unified, but this should also include discrimination again non veg people and other forms of discrimination we have or tax breaks to temples and mosques..You cannot say we are favoring one religion but on the other hand still have these rules accommodating some religions 

 

Ban all, including discrimination against non veg or stop picking and choosing things to complain about. 

Edited August 10, 2025 by New guy