rkt.india Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The offensive posts on #ChhatrapatiShivaji and #BalThackeray caused unrest, got a Muslim killed and there is an understandable tension among the Muslims. It is the same mentality that has made the mobs stone the cars of Nitin Gadkari (their very own but a Brahmin unlike OBC leader #GopinathMunde) and CM #PrithvirajChauhan (also a Maharashtrian but from a rival party). We must understand why these morons behave this way before finding a solution to this endless cycle of violence. That poor child lost his life - its terrible in itself. That a mob can actually lynch a boy for a fb post tells also on the breakdown of law and order. No fear of the law any more has unleashed whatever may have been lying dormant and seething anyway. So you are right in saying that we have to address that. In the wake of his death it doesn't look nice to say this but let's face it - the thought is in every liberal's mind too- his post was injudicious, disrespectful and what's more it was a sly act. It was like throwing a lit match on your neighbour's house under cover of darkness and running away. I am not saying that retaliatory violence shd be the order of the day but why disrespect Shivaji at all - whether on fb or otherwise? I remember some Gujarati friends (there was tension between mah and Guj for many years) sneeringly quoting from history books that he was called a mountain rat. I reminded them that that was the British's pov, not our History, but they refused to change their stance and I realised that day, at a very young age that ppl have a lot of rage inside them that needs a target. You cannot take away their target from them but you can try and take away the rage. Your analysis is spot on. Some comments from FB.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 trust DM to shun mainstream media and post from a muslim site in kohram. Might as well add twocircles.net to that Your double standards have reached disproportionate levels of suffocation. The articles against Modi in mainstream media are kaangress ownjed, sickular but here you want me to quote MSM. :facepalm: In any case, the source of the article is Pune Mirror (also mentioned in the link that I posted). But, you of course have an inherent rule in your mind where a post which goes against your political allegiance is a kaanspiracy theory. But, I can't expect better from someone who doesn't mind criminals being inducted into parliament just because he wants the BJP to win the elections. http://www.punemirror.in/pune/crime/FB-post-shuts-down-Pune/articleshow/35911896.cms waah bhai' date='very reliable source.[/quote'] Google is your friend. The actual source is PuneMirror and not that website. Another source for what I posted. Mind you - this incident was not reported on any TV channels but only local TV. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/objectionable-pictures-originated-in-osmanabad/15346174
G_B_ Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Your double standards have reached disproportionate levels of suffocation. The articles against Modi in mainstream media are kaangress ownjed' date= sickular but here you want me to quote MSM. :facepalm: In any case, the source of the article is Pune Mirror (also mentioned in the link that I posted). But, you of course have an inherent rule in your mind where a post which goes against your political allegiance is a kaanspiracy theory. But, I can't expect better from someone who doesn't mind criminals being inducted into parliament just because he wants the BJP to win the elections. http://www.punemirror.in/pune/crime/FB-post-shuts-down-Pune/articleshow/35911896.cms Google is your friend. The actual source is PuneMirror and not that website. Another source for what I posted. Mind you - this incident was not reported on any TV channels but only local TV. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/objectionable-pictures-originated-in-osmanabad/15346174 point out a thread when i have said that. I may disagree with the content but never the source. But seriously Kohram?
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 People also must understand that defaming someone or posting derogatory things about people isn't freedom of expression. It is abuse of freedom of expression and the advice is that everyone must stay away from indulging in such activities' date=' otherwise, this world is full of retards, some have their own agenda, who can cross all borders of insanity to show how they are the self-declared leaders to save their religion or community, etc.[/quote'] Please try to differentiate between two issues. First, Is the content derogatory? Yes it is. Second, Is derogatory content a guilt-free license to start vandalism. No! Of course, one should be careful - blah, blah, blah .... but don't try to shift the blame of vandalism to the person who posted the derogatory content. The blame of destruction of public property and killing people lies with the people who did it. The justification of "these people posted derogatory content" is no justification - this is not math LHS/RHS cancels out! The derogatory content can be anything - Shivaji in a bikini or Prophet Muhammad as a beggar or Jesus Christ as a gay. None of these pictures are a guilt free pass to lead mobs out on street and destroy public property and kill people.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 point out a thread when i have said that. I may disagree with the content but never the source. But seriously Kohram? Common G_B_ , I expect you to understand what I said. The article is not from Kohram but Pune Mirror and has also been reported on local Marathi TV channels. Kohram was like a mirror to the PuneMirror article. It is clearly mentioned on the Kohram link too.
G_B_ Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Common G_B_ ' date=' I expect you to understand what I said. The article is not from Kohram but Pune Mirror and has also been reported on local Marathi TV channels. Kohram was like a mirror to the PuneMirror article.[/quote'] so then post the pune mirror article. Keep in mind you did not post "from pune mirror" in your original post. All you did in message 97 in this thread was post a pic and passage from the article.
bulbul Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Please try to differentiate between two issues. First' date=' Is the content derogatory? Yes it is. Second, Is derogatory content a guilt-free license to start vandalism. No! Of course, one should be careful - blah, blah, blah .... but don't try to shift the blame of vandalism to the person who posted the derogatory content. The blame of destruction of public property and killing people lies with the people who did it. The justification of "these people posted derogatory content" is no justification - this is not math LHS/RHS cancels out! The derogatory content can be anything - Shivaji in a bikini or Prophet Muhammad as a beggar or Jesus Christ as a gay. None of these pictures are a guilt free pass to lead mobs out on street and destroy public property and kill people.[/quote'] I guess you have to read what he wrote..No one is justifying attacks. But mean tiem there should be a limit to this "freedom of express" where people intentionally provoke others. Dotn know why person is can not to be blamed for inciting,provoctaion etc...
rkt.india Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Please try to differentiate between two issues. First' date=' Is the content derogatory? Yes it is. Second, Is derogatory content a guilt-free license to start vandalism. No! Of course, one should be careful - blah, blah, blah ....[b'] but don't try to shift the blame of vandalism to the person who posted the derogatory content. The blame of destruction of public property and killing people lies with the people who did it. The justification of "these people posted derogatory content" is no justification - this is not math LHS/RHS cancels out! The derogatory content can be anything - Shivaji in a bikini or Prophet Muhammad as a beggar or Jesus Christ as a gay. None of these pictures are a guilt free pass to lead mobs out on street and destroy public property and kill people. Where did I say that? I only meant it is better to be on the safe side and refrain from such acts on social media. If not face such incidents, one might be booked even under cyber law if someone complains. You are coming to your own conclusion. I am not supporting vandalism, read my post #107.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 so then post the pune mirror article. Keep in mind you did not post "from pune mirror" in your original post. All you did in message 97 in this thread was post a pic and passage from the article. :wall: I don't think I need to post from Pune Mirror when the article says that it is from PuneMirror. I expect people to read the article before making a comment on it. Is that an unfair expectation? I posted something which went against your political allegiance. You looked for a data point in a rebuttal. You saw the link was from Kohram and immediately proceeded to debunk it. Now, it is shown that it was not so your rebuttal does not hold true. In the previous post you mentioned, I disagree with the content not the source. However, 2 posts earlier you talk about Kohram being a partisan source. Kya yaar G_B_!
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I guess you have to read what he wrote..No one is justifying attacks. But mean tiem there should be a limit to this "freedom of express" where people intentionally provoke others. Dotn know why person is can not to be blamed for inciting,provoctaion etc... The moment you say "be careful with what you post" it is a veiled threat.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Where did I say that? I only meant it is better to be on the safe side and refrain from such acts on social media. If not face such incidents, one might be booked even under cyber law if someone complains. You are coming to your own conclusion. I am not supporting vandalism, read my post #107. That is a veiled threat in a euphemistic tone. Better to be on the safe side or else ... I never said you supported vandalism directly. I am just discriminating these two issues for you and everyone who seem to be suggesting to "be careful nahi toh ...".
ravishingravi Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The moment you say "be careful with what you post" it is a veiled threat. The moment you see "veiled threats" in every realistic opinion you are paranoid. Realistic- connected to ground realities of the country you live in. Yes, for those who are not aware, there is country outside your monitor and sometimes you have to face it.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The moment you see "veiled threats" in every realistic opinion you are paranoid. Realistic- connected to ground realities of the country you live in. Yes, for those who are not aware, there is country outside your monitor and sometimes you have to face it. The moment you generalize and say that I said "veiled threats" for every realistic statement that was/has been made you are making a generalization. The ground realities of the country are not coded in cast & stone. The so called "realistic morons" used the ground realities (perpetrated by the eternal shehenshah Great bong) to peddle the similar kool aid which is sold across the border. Yes, for those to haven't lived outside their apartment or city, there are places on the earth where you are not lynched for a Facebook post which you didn't make.
G_B_ Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 :wall: I don't think I need to post from Pune Mirror when the article says that it is from PuneMirror. I expect people to read the article before making a comment on it. Is that an unfair expectation? I posted something which went against your political allegiance. You looked for a data point in a rebuttal. You saw the link was from Kohram and immediately proceeded to debunk it. Now, it is shown that it was not so your rebuttal does not hold true. In the previous post you mentioned, I disagree with the content not the source. However, 2 posts earlier you talk about Kohram being a partisan source. Kya yaar G_B_! this is nothing about a rebuttal. This is a forum and not a court of law. The truth is i dont even waste my time looking at the articles from certain sites. I am a busy man.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 this is nothing about a rebuttal. This is a forum and not a court of law. The truth is i dont even waste my time looking at the articles from certain sites. I am a busy man. A rebuttal is not only provided in a court of law; it is a synonym for counter-argument which suits a forum. If you don't have the time - you shouldn't comment on them too.
bulbul Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The moment you say "be careful with what you post" it is a veiled threat. How many times i have to tell you dont assume too much.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 How many times i have to tell you dont assume too much. "You" doesn't mean bulbul. "You" is also used as a 3rd person pronoun.
rkt.india Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 That is a veiled threat in a euphemistic tone. Better to be on the safe side or else ... I never said you supported vandalism directly. I am just discriminating these two issues for you and everyone who seem to be suggesting to "be careful nahi toh ...". Veiled threat...really! it was a general comment not just in this case but to everyone. Anyone can find oneself in such situation, you and I won't even realize when that happens. It is not just about religion or community. With regards to the case, to me, it looks like a pre-targeted attack, otherwise, they wouldn't have attacked just one person. Whether communal or not, govt. must act right way prevent further tension and take steps to arrest involved people ASAP.
G_B_ Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 A rebuttal is not only provided in a court of law; it is a synonym for counter-argument which suits a forum. If you don't have the time - you shouldn't comment on them too. If you go through message 99 on this thread. Thats exactly what i have done. Commenting on the source of the article and not its content. Its simple net etiquette to post the entire article along with its source. Especially considering the source in question was a "mirror" as you say to an original source. Especially one not from mainstream media.
bulbul Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 "You" doesn't mean bulbul. "You" is also used as a 3rd person pronoun. you i wrote is You.
Recommended Posts