So tell me. Are you consistent with you beliefs on labeling groups?
That's pretty much all the government cosy media does -- handing out certificates about who is patriotic and who is not.
If members does an act in the name of an org and that is against the values of the organization. Its for the organization to clarify that their values do not match with the cations taken by these group. This is what the farmer protester groups did when violence occurred. This what they did when cell towers were vandalized.
The RSS on the other hand has stayed mum which in normal course of action will be and is taken as tacit support. Of course I don't read all of RSS's press releases. If you have pointers to RSS official press releases where they have condemned specific attacks I would be very interested to read.
So tell me. Are you consistent with your labeling?
Are you labeling a religion as terrorist because of some of its people?
You are just trying to avoid answering the question by adding extraneous and irrelevant diversions. Sorry wont bite your bait. BTW I was not aware that RSS is a religion.
This much I am willing to claim -- RSS is a silent approver of right wing acts of violence starting all the way from Gandhi's assassination to more contemporaneous cow slaughter related lynchings.
Unlike the farmer protests that have distanced itself from acts of violence and vandalism I am unaware that RSS has done that for the violence that has engulfed India in this govt, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.
The spokesmen of the government have frequently branded the entire protest and Khalistani and Pakistani. I am very tickled that you seem to be outraged not by the act of the government which has real implications but on the comment someone made on the internet. That might be quite indicative of where your sympathies lie.
You got yourself tangled because you could not honestly answer the question. Since you became aware you are not consistent.
See OP mentioned RSS as Religious terrorists because of its members. So to the logical conclusion Hindus are terrorists because of its has organizations like RSS/Guj riots involved in it. So you just called a million Hindus terrorists. Anyway whatever makes you happy.
Yeah keep spreading lies if it helps. It really shows you and those that you support in revealing light.
This is very good because these chats and their logic is public and for all to see and make their own judgements. Thanks for making my job easier.
Pray enlighten me where I have been inconsistent without shoving your words on my mouth, and where I have called a million Hindus a terrorist.
You remind me of Sambit Patra the BJP spokesperson who was asked about the number of zeros that are in trillion when he was going on and on about Indias trillion rupees economy. All this Patra could respond with is invective that the person who asked the question should go and ask Rahul Gandhi -- a cheap rhetorical device used to clutch at straws when one does not have substance to offer.
I rest my case
You refusal to answer the question indicates that you agree with it. Else its a simple answer.
Let me ask myself that question. Do you consider a group of people a terrorists simply because some members indulge in it. NO I DO NOT.
That's it man. No grand conspiracy. No name calling nothing. Why not a simple answer. All are inherently biased. But that should not deter us in calling out inconsistently.
On the other hand you have not yet pointed out where I have called millions of Hindu a terrorist or where I have been inconsistent. Its you who called me names (that I consider millions of Hindu a terrorist)
So once again, OP(not you unless you are alt!) said that RSS are religious terrorists because of their activities. Now as as i know they have not denoted a bomb which killed hundreds. But maybe the term applies because of some of their other activities like lynching(Though this happens to Hindus as well, do we then consider the other party terrorist. No answer needed. There would hundreds of comments while you divert away from answering :)
Here goes. One last hurrah
So do i label group of people as terrorists because of some of its members. NO.
For you. You can fill in the blanks.
So do i label group of people as terrorists because of some of its members. __.
One thing's clear: political/nationalistic/religious flamewar is not ok on HN regardless of which side people are fighting for or against.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
That's a ridiculous and defamatory claim. I think I am allowed to ask for clarifications or contest it when words are put in my mouth
It's all too easy to assume that you're following the rules when you aren't—we all suffer from this, because we have our own good intentions in mind when commenting. But those intentions don't communicate themselves, and when you're arguing, your comments are likely to come across as 10x more aggressive (if not 100x!) as they felt to you.
It's as if, when sparring, people underestimate how hard their punches are. You don't feel it, but the other person sure does—and then they land a punch back that feels (to them) like it's about equal, but feels to you like it's 10x harder—and suddenly there's a brawl in which everyone feels like the other person started the conflict and escalated it, while they themselves are merely reacting. In reality, both are doing it, and both are subject to the same cognitive bias that makes it feel like we're the innocent one and they're the guilty one.
For this reason it's super important to err on the side of scrupulously editing swipes and aggressive language out of your comments, especially on divisive topics. As the guidelines say: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Even if your intent is good, the burden is on you as an internet commenter to disambiguate your intent for the reader.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Unfortunately a section of a society just thrives on propagating the identity of a hurt majority -- they back stabbed Hindus, they called Hinduism names etc etc. History shows us that this is very dangerous.
I am not to sure that keeping them uncontested is a good idea. Will have to find better and measured language to contest those.