Desi Cartman Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 oh wow .. So what do these people want ? A huge ground for all nut jobs from either side to fight with talwaar and sandasa ? Maybe the govt should assign a place and time where these morons can kill each other and be done for the next 100 years
ravishingravi Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Togadia clearly lacks the class of Owaisi. If I have to admire an hate speech, it has to be Owaisi's. Btw good job Mods, in merging the thread.
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Togadia clearly lacks the class of Owaisi. If I have to admire an hate speech, it has to be Owaisi's. Btw good job Mods, in merging the thread. While both are hate mongering buffoons, I agree with you. Owaisi is a better orator than Togadia. So talking bout hatemongers, what u make of Varun Gandhi? He's got oratory skills, he knows how to work up a crowd, good pauses, humor, and delivers his punch lines with a gusto.
ravishingravi Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 While both are hate mongering buffoons' date=' I agree with you. Owaisi is a better orator than Togadia. So talking bout hatemongers, what u make of Varun Gandhi? He's got oratory skills, he knows how to work up a crowd, good pauses, humor, and delivers his punch lines with a gusto.[/quote'] Yeah Varun Gandhi has something. He can to work up the crowd at some level. Maybe with more practice he could get there. Owaisi is in "Bal Thackeray" league. Just flow, delivery, pauses, humor. Right up there.
CSK Fan Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Indian secularism has little in common with "actual" secularism. Trying practicing anti majority politics in the west and see how far you go. Actually one of the biggest concern in the west is that the pure white guys are being left behind in everything while the black guys are being molly-cuddled. There are plenty of people who feel just like you in America when it comes to white rights vs minority rights just like there are plenty of men who feel insecure when women rights are discussed as they feel today men's issues are getting left behind But there is a good reason for countries focusing on its weakest segment and leaving the stronger one on their own. When a part of your country is so far back behind, the only way for the country to move forward is to focus on its weakest link. Be it the weakest caste sect or weakest religion. Just for the fact that the minorities will be insecure, it will automatically make the country weak. So the country cannot be blind and ignore them Take a weighing scale. If one side is a lot heavier than the other, wont you keep on adding weight to the lighter side? And what if this process is over a period of many decades, wont the heavier side feel neglected? But the adding of the weight is very much required for the scale to attend the perfect balance. Lets take another example, you have seasoned veterens in a team in a company and there are a couple of people who need some hand holding. If the boss focuses on the weaker guys does that make him a bad boss?
yoda Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Actually one of the biggest concern in the west is that the pure white guys are being left behind in everything while the black guys are being molly-cuddled. There are plenty of people who feel just like you in America when it comes to white rights vs minority rights just like there are plenty of men who feel insecure when women rights are discussed as they feel today men's issues are getting left behind But there is a good reason for countries focusing on its weakest segment and leaving the stronger one on their own. When a part of your country is so far back behind, the only way for the country to move forward is to focus on its weakest link. Be it the weakest caste sect or weakest religion. Just for the fact that the minorities will be insecure, it will automatically make the country weak. So the country cannot be blind and ignore them Take a weighing scale. If one side is a lot heavier than the other, wont you keep on adding weight to the lighter side? And what if this process is over a period of many decades, wont the heavier side feel neglected? But the adding of the weight is very much required for the scale to attend the perfect balance. Lets take another example, you have seasoned veterens in a team in a company and there are a couple of people who need some hand holding. If the boss focuses on the weaker guys does that make him a bad boss? US has a policy called Affirmative Action, which is supposed to treat everyone fairly irrespective of race/religion/.... Some have used Affirmative Action to providing quotas, but that has been rejected by people and courts. There is nothing in the US that makes life easier for blacks except to treat them equally.
The Outsider Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 US has a policy called Affirmative Action' date=' which is supposed to treat everyone fairly irrespective of race/religion/.... [b']Some have used Affirmative Action to providing quotas, but that has been rejected by people and courts. There is nothing in the US that makes life easier for blacks except to treat them equally. That's not true. The Supreme Court ruling in 2002 said that educational institutes can use race as a factor in admissions.
CSK Fan Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 US has a policy called Affirmative Action' date=' which is supposed to treat everyone fairly irrespective of race/religion/.... Some have used Affirmative Action to providing quotas, but that has been rejected by people and courts. There is nothing in the US that makes life easier for blacks except to treat them equally.[/quote'] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota And it still took many decades to come to that situation
Lurker Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Actually one of the biggest concern in the west is that the pure white guys are being left behind in everything while the black guys are being molly-cuddled. There are plenty of people who feel just like you in America when it comes to white rights vs minority rights just like there are plenty of men who feel insecure when women rights are discussed as they feel today men's issues are getting left behind Of course they are. And the odd thing is that nobody, atleast no sane liberal minded individual, questions why Blacks are so molly coddled. (Not talking about Rush Limbaugh here). Yes Blacks may have history set against them but in the modern day 20th century, 21st actually, they keep using that argument only to shield their inadequacies. For example, a lot of Black superstar athletes (NFL, NBA etc) proclaim how they did not have a Dad, how their Moms were the driving force, and when they become celebrities they end up having 6 kids from 4 wives. You kidding me?? Same goes for Black women. Although they are lot more strong than their male counterpart and I absolutely respect their drive as single women trying to raise their kids, they also often have multiple kids from multiple partners. I mention this because African American population suffers more due to their family handicaps than historical handicaps. One strong reason why Jews, and even Indians/Chinese, have been successful in the US is also because the family roots are strong. Say what you will about the NRI Gujjus but they will make sure their kids will have everything. In case of African Americans this is sadly missing. Two thumbs up for the MOD who changed the title though :haha:
yoda Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 That's not true. The Supreme Court ruling in 2002 said that educational institutes can use race as a factor in admissions. Race not ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger Affirmative action ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger These two cases are confusingly similar though.
The Outsider Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Race not ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger Affirmative action ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger From your link: The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." And: O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. The opinion read, "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time." "
yoda Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 From your link: And: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke. From what I understand, the key is that race can be considered but can't be the sole determining factor, which is the difference between Affirmative action vs Quota system. In the latter, a predetermined % is set aside based on race. In the former, when applications are reviewed, a variety of factors can be considered including ensuring racial diversity.
The Outsider Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 From what I understand' date=' the key is that race can be considered but can't be the sole determining factor, which is the difference between Affirmative action vs Quota system. In the latter, a predetermined % is set aside based on race. In the former, when applications are reviewed, a variety of factors can be considered including ensuring racial diversity.[/quote'] Yeah, I am not saying quota and affirmative action are the same. But rather that race can be used as a factor in admissions as long as the justification is to provide a better and more diverse educational experience to the student body in general. That's different from the system being completely race blind.
The Outsider Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 I mention this because African American population suffers more due to their family handicaps than historical handicaps. One strong reason why Jews, and even Indians/Chinese, have been successful in the US is also because the family roots are strong. Say what you will about the NRI Gujjus but they will make sure their kids will have everything. In case of African Americans this is sadly missing. At least a part of it can be attributed to historical handicaps. A lot of Indians and Chinese have come from well educated backgrounds already and thus value education and push their kids towards it. This also helps others in the community who are not from as educated backgrounds to also do the same. However, Blacks have a historical handicap which is not very easy to overcome as well as the general environment of their groups does not help. I don't think Blacks from college educated families are significantly more likely to be involved in crime etc. and would go on to education and white collar jobs with a much higher percentage than someone from the underprivileged areas and society.
akshayxyz Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Actually one of the biggest concern in the west is that the pure white guys are being left behind in everything while the black guys are being molly-cuddled. There are plenty of people who feel just like you in America when it comes to white rights vs minority rights just like there are plenty of men who feel insecure when women rights are discussed as they feel today men's issues are getting left behind But there is a good reason for countries focusing on its weakest segment and leaving the stronger one on their own. When a part of your country is so far back behind, the only way for the country to move forward is to focus on its weakest link. Be it the weakest caste sect or weakest religion. Just for the fact that the minorities will be insecure, it will automatically make the country weak. So the country cannot be blind and ignore them Take a weighing scale. If one side is a lot heavier than the other, wont you keep on adding weight to the lighter side? And what if this process is over a period of many decades, wont the heavier side feel neglected? But the adding of the weight is very much required for the scale to attend the perfect balance. Lets take another example, you have seasoned veterens in a team in a company and there are a couple of people who need some hand holding. If the boss focuses on the weaker guys does that make him a bad boss? Agree on first two paras. Don't agree on analogies. Weighing scale solves completely different problem altogether. Primary objective of weighing scale is to achieve balance, so you will always add weights to lighter side - and if you noticed, sometimes kiranewaala removes extra sugar/rice/aataa/daal. etc from the heavier side too ;). As for the company - again quite different setup/context/objective, in reality, bottom 5-10% are usually laid off. So, pretty lame analogies IMO. One can come up with both types (tending to vs ignoring/amputating) of simplistic analogies of 'treating' imbalance - it does not tell anything for highly complex problems as 'minority issue'.
Lurker Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 At least a part of it can be attributed to historical handicaps. A lot of Indians and Chinese have come from well educated backgrounds already and thus value education and push their kids towards it. This also helps others in the community who are not from as educated backgrounds to also do the same. However, Blacks have a historical handicap which is not very easy to overcome as well as the general environment of their groups does not help. I don't think Blacks from college educated families are significantly more likely to be involved in crime etc. and would go on to education and white collar jobs with a much higher percentage than someone from the underprivileged areas and society. Nope, that is false equivalency. If you forget the NRI factor for a second, back home in India the poorest of the poor tries to educate the kids and make their life better. I am sure there are stray incidents but by and large I doubt an average Indian male chugs his kids and leaves them to be looked after by their Mom. This is NOT what is happening in African American society. The NRI reference was merely to equate the American society where both an NRI and African American exist.
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Yeah Varun Gandhi has something. He can to work up the crowd at some level. Maybe with more practice he could get there. Owaisi is in "Bal Thackeray" league. Just flow, delivery, pauses, humor. Right up there. That said Uddhav is quite horrible. And seriously don't get what the fuss over Raj is all about. In every speech he comes off as a grumpy politico who thinks it's his birth right to be on the podium. In terms of charisma both are no-where close to their old man.
surajmal Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Actually one of the biggest concern in the west is that the pure white guys are being left behind in everything while the black guys are being molly-cuddled. There are plenty of people who feel just like you in America when it comes to white rights vs minority rights just like there are plenty of men who feel insecure when women rights are discussed as they feel today men's issues are getting left behind But there is a good reason for countries focusing on its weakest segment and leaving the stronger one on their own. When a part of your country is so far back behind, the only way for the country to move forward is to focus on its weakest link. Be it the weakest caste sect or weakest religion. Just for the fact that the minorities will be insecure, it will automatically make the country weak. So the country cannot be blind and ignore them Take a weighing scale. If one side is a lot heavier than the other, wont you keep on adding weight to the lighter side? And what if this process is over a period of many decades, wont the heavier side feel neglected? But the adding of the weight is very much required for the scale to attend the perfect balance. Lets take another example, you have seasoned veterens in a team in a company and there are a couple of people who need some hand holding. If the boss focuses on the weaker guys does that make him a bad boss? Wohi ghisi piti baat. Mere khayal mein tujhe communist manifesto virasat mein milla hai. Isliye, agar, 70 saalon key parinam key baad bhi tere dimag ko upyogitavadi nitiyon ki mahatva nahi samajh mein aati, toh teri meri iss vishay par charcha vyarth hai. Edit: Also it is important that you check what secularism REALLY is.
Raghav_12 Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 FIR filed against Togadia in Nanded http://www.indianexpress.com/news/fir-filed-against-togadia-in-nanded/1071346/ Nearly 16 days after hardline Hindutva leader Praveen Togadia allegedly made an inflammatory speech targeting a particular community, the Nanded Police on Thursday filed a case against him under section 153 A for promoting enmity on grounds of religion. Togadia on January 22 in the border town of Bhokhar in Nanded District in Maharashtra adjoining Andhra Pradesh had made a speech in which he had pointed out to the communal massacres in Nelli, Bhagalpur and Gujarat. Togadia purportedly made this statement in reaction to AIMIM legislator Akbaruddin Owaisi's statement that the Muslims would show their might to the Hndus if the police stepped aside. A hue and cry in social media platforms had finally made the Centre take cognizance of the entire issue with the Centre's Minister of State for Home RPN Singh asking the state to take action against Togadia if his speech was found to be inflammatory. The Nanded Police had also received complaints and finally decided to file a case on Thursday. Earlier, Maharashtra Home Minister R R Patil has claimed that strict action will be taken against all those found to promote hate between communities. "Anyone who is found trying to promote hate between communities will be severely dealt with," Patil said. Togadia, meanwhile, denied that he made any kind of hate speech and said he was stating historical facts. 'Owaisi, Togadia should be seen in same light' Maharashtra Minorities Affairs minister Naseem Khan said Thursday that MIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi and VHP leader Pravin Togadia should be seen in the same light as both of them have tried to inflame communal passions through their speeches.
Crookbond Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 The Nanded police have slapped Sections 153 (A), 295, 505 (2) on Dr. Togadia for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, intending to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs by deliberate and malicious acts and for making statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hate-speech-centre-asks-maharashtra-to-take-action-against-togadia/article4389631.ece?homepage=true Dr. Togadia!
Recommended Posts