Have r/India always been like this?

[mayank11280]

Constitution is not an encyclopedia or a Library consisting of literatures.
Kids learning to walk and talk isn't guided by the supreme court or explained in the constitution.

What are you on about? We are talking about the fundamental rights persons which is what the Supreme Court and Constitution deal with most importantly.

 

[khamosh]

What are you on about? We are talking about the fundamental rights persons which is what the Supreme Court and Constitution deal with most importantly.

You were the one stating a nonsensical argument, I just replied in that tone. Peace

 

[mayank11280]

This is a bait. I have met and talked to enough leftists to know how they operate. They start with pretending they have no idea and start with questions and then all of a sudden they are experts on constitution.

Meanwhile not even a single leftist could ever answer me why this happened

https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810

This is whataboutism. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Left or right all are the same in that regard.

In a democracy, it is fair to ask questions whether from those who seek to preserve the status quo pr those who seek to change. It is from this dialectics that the change actually happens.

When someone labels one group or the other then they clearly are coming from a position of some standard of evaluation. Hence, my question was to understand what position were they coming from.

Stereotypes are uncool for either side. Dismissing an argument based on labels is also bad.

You were the one stating a nonsensical argument, I just replied in that tone. Peace

Do you know Po’s law?

No one can know the tone through texts. It is always wise to consider good will, else one will grow cynical.

Also, my argument is simple “right to life” is accorded to every individual. This is what the Supreme Court says. I don’t see any lack of sense in the argument.

 

[blr_p]

People vote on the basis of self interest, no doubt but how do they decide which interest is worth voting for is shaped by debate and discussions on a free and open platform.

Read the manifestos and choose what you like. This is as close as you can get to voting on issues. That great middle class aspiration which is dwarfed by voting on the basis of identity because that works with the largest demographic

Hence, no ruling party should be allowed to control and suppress differing voices because that will subvert the democracy itself.

But the ruling party isn't doing that. These are private setups who can make whatever rules they want. Nobody is forcing anyone to join.

I an speaking from the basis of following policy.

Deciding elections is a different use case. But even here I find the sharpest crticism and usually well targeted coming from the party followers or aligned publications.

Not the opposition whose best argument amounts to "Vote for us because we're not them" and then they wonder why they lost the election.

Essence of democracy is open debates and discussions. Whether right or left, no has the right to ban the other in a democracy.

Private websites

There are publications for both sides. Each picks the other apart. Nothing is being banned in the real world.

Right and Left are distinguished not on the basis of progressivism or internationalism but the idea of change and status quo.

But empirically speaking those are the ideologies favoured by the left. Are they not?

Those who seek to preserve the existing socio-politico-economic order sat on the right side of the well of French National Convention in 1792 after the French Revolution. They wanted to restore monarchy. The ones on the left wanted to abolish the monarchy and establish a complete republic. Hence, emerged the left and right terminologies and distinction.

That definition while historically correct doesn't help understand the present. I could not with that definition decide which side a party belonged to. The policy followed is the distinction.

In India, Congress is anything but left,

But they are progressive which looks to marxism.

BJP is also not right but rather centre right because they also follow the welfare policies for upliftment of the vulnerable and the marginalised.

Both call themselves centrist but the opinions of those further away from the centre are what pushes commentary.

If anything, I think we could not have a clear understanding of your POV because you have a different perspective of the world than me.

Not really so different. What I've explained comes from the current commentary which in my case is how the right sees the left

 

[mayank11280]

But they are progressive which looks to marxism.

Progressivism is starkly different from Marxism.

Marxism is about placing the means of production in the hands of the proletariat, while destroying the bourgeoisie. It can happen only through revolution. Marxists have historically hated progressives.

Progressives are reformers. They don’t seek to dismantle the system but make it more habitable for all through universally acceptable reforms. In that regard I consider BJP a progressive party, not very different from Congress in policy measures.

 

[blr_p]

Progressives threaten liberals the same way facists threaten nationalists

And the BJP ust considered a nationalist party and Congress as left/liberal/progressive.

Don't try to screw with commonly used terms

 

[mayank11280]

Progressives threaten liberals the same way facists threaten nationalists

How so?

 

[blr_p]

How so?

Isn't it obvious.

Liberals or shall we say classic liberals derive their ideas from the renaissance.

Progressives are partial to Marxist ideas.

Progressives corrupt liberals by pulling them to the left. The term 'liberal' mean progressive in the present.

Fascists do the same with Nationalists.

Yet we have no fascist parties but plenty of progressive ones.

 

[mayank11280]

And the BJP ust considered a nationalist party and Congress as left/liberal/progressive.

Don't try to screw with commonly used terms

“Considered” doesn’t mean much, does it?

Look at the policies.

Aadhaar was a progressive step (flaws and all) introduced by Congress. Further strengthened by the BJP.

When INC wanted to sign Indo-US nuclear deal, the BJP opposed it. Soon it became the plank on the basis of which India-US cooperation became possible and today we are reaping the rewards under the BJP government.

LPG reforms were introduced by INC. BJP had opposed it back then. Then both accepted this progressive step for the benefit of the nation.

GST was first proposed during INC regime, BJP rejected initially but when in power implemented this progressive step for Ease of Doing Business.

Similarly, many schemes for the poor and vulnerable are introduced by the BJP, which a liberal government will never do. These policies are progressive in nature to ensure inclusive growth.

I can go on and on. But the difference between the two in policy practice is not much different.

Isn't it obvious.

Liberals or shall we say classic liberals derive their ideas from the renaissance.

Progressives are partial to Marxist ideas.

Progressives corrupt liberals by pulling them to the left. The term 'liberal' mean progressive in the present.

Fascists do the same with Nationalists.

Yet we have no fascist parties but plenty of progressive ones.

See, that is the problem with polarisation.

You and I can have different opinions and respect each other.

The problem is when the differences are not tolerated and reductive labelling is done, the end result is polarisation of differences and subsequent vilification. That’s why liberals are conflated with Marxists and Nationalists with Fascists.

Engagement becomes impossible.

That’s why I always ask deeper questions. Now, I see that you have a richer understanding of the practical politics and we have not very incompatible views.

 

[blr_p]

“Considered” doesn’t mean much, does it?

Look at the policies.

Aadhaar was a progressive step (flaws and all) introduced by Congress. Further strengthened by the BJP.

When INC wanted to sign Indo-US nuclear deal, the BJP opposed it. Soon it became the plank on the basis of India-US cooperation became possible and today we are reaping the rewards.

LPG reforms were introduced by INC. BJP had opposed it back then. Then both accepted this progressive step for the benefit of the nation.

GST was first proposed during INC regime, BJP rejected initially but when in power implemented this progressive step for Ease of Doing Business.

Similarly, many schemes for the poor and vulnerable are introduced by the BJP, which a liberal government will never do. These policies are progressive in nature to ensure inclusive growth.

I can go on and on. But the difference between the two in policy practice is not much different.

You are referring to economic policies and I've already conceded that the BJPs policies are not your typical run of the mill.

You are then using this as a basis to call BJP progressive.

BJP opposing the nuke deal is because they were they were the ones that created the basis to have one in the first place. To me it was just petty politics and sour grapes.

When in opposition oppose and when you win office introduce similar or a rejigged vers

 

[mayank11280]

You are referring to economic policies and I've already conceded that the BJPs policies are not your typical run of the mill.

BJP does have fiscal conservatism in their ideology. Some call it conservative idea but in all frankness it is a prudential economic measure, what we call as counter cyclical measure. BJP themselves introduced FRBM Act in 2003 to reduce Fiscal deficit, control Debt to GDP ratio and remove revenue deficit. Which the INC didn’t repeal afterwards. Which we are still trying to achieve. Then in that regards INC is closer to BJP.

BJP opposing the nuke deal is because they were they were the ones that created the basis to have one in the first place. To me it was just petty politics and sour grapes.

See, that’s what I am talking about, polarisation disallows us from seeing what is actually beneficial and what is harmful. Opposing just for the sake of opposing is the product of polarisation.

 

[blr_p]

See, that’s what I am talking about, polarisation disallows us from seeing what is actually beneficial and what is harmful. Opposing just for the sake of opposing is the product of polarisation.

This is why I don't waste time with opposition of any country because 9 times out of 10 it is crap

 

[Mr.J]

r/India is run by Pakistan/Bangladeshi IT cell. Not only mod but lots of other account as well.​

Below is their day to day cycle.

Few of choosen accounts start with "story of the day" which is low points. Other make sure to upvote/comment it as much as they can. At the same time they downvote any topic which is highlights or any India achivement.
They comment in passive voice and try to win neutral POV over time. They go to your profile histrory and will make sure your view is aligned with their view/Propaganda or not. They will ban you even you didn't comment a SINGLE time on r/India sub reddit.
I'm just sharing my experience.

Proof?

 

[mayank11280]

This is why I don't waste time with opposition of any country because 9 times out of 10 it is crap

That’s why it becomes even more important to understand the nuanced differences between the ruling and the opposition factions, IMO.

You can’t dismiss someone just because you think they are useless. That is polarised perspective.

Open mindedness is a great virtue.

Proof?

Don’t worry. When one person said IndiaSpeaks is run by BJP IT cell, proof was asked by some. Those who demanded proof back then liked the Bangladeshi IT Cell without asking for proof.

Conformity Bias is strong.

 

[blr_p]

That’s why it becomes even more important to understand the nuanced differences between the ruling and the opposition factions, IMO.

I voted for the BJP three times. My mind was made up. Looking at congress manifesto and it seemed dated like it came from a much older era.

 

[mayank11280]

I voted for the BJP three times. My mind was made up. Looking at congress manifesto and it seemed dated like it came from a much older era.

You did your part.

You gave the INC message that they are out of touch with the experiences of a common man.

But that was then and things change, you and I have changed, our circumstances have changed, our needs have changed. I am not asking you to vote for this or that. Far from it. I am just suggesting that we should keep an open mind, listen to all and vote to serve our own best interests as per our current needs.

A vigilant citizenry is essential for a democracy. Government needs to be questioned by the opposition and the citizens. Opposition needs to keep in tune with the sign of the times. They all play crucial roles in a democracy.

I think as long as we have democracy, all parties will try to serve the national interest, some more than the others at one time or the other. But the nuances will differ, our interests may differ and we may vote as per our interests.

That’s why we must listen to all. Whether in power or not.

 

[Mr.J]

Don’t worry. When one person said IndiaSpeaks is run by BJP IT cell, proof was asked by some. Those who demanded proof back then liked the Bangladeshi IT Cell without asking for proof.

BJP IT cells exist and has been covered by different newspapers extensively. Most members in those groups are volunteers and it's not hard to say that some of those might be on reddit as well.

You did your part.

You gave the INC message that they are out of touch with the experiences of a common man.

But that was then and things change, you and I have changed, our circumstances have changed, our needs have changed. I am not asking you to vote for this or that. Far from it. I am just suggesting that we should keep an open mind, listen to all and vote to serve our own best interests as per our current needs.

A vigilant citizenry is essential for a democracy. Government needs to be questioned by the opposition and the citizens. Opposition needs to keep in tune with the sign of the times. They all play crucial roles in a democracy.

That’s why we must listen to all. Whether in power or not.

You're wasting your time. He's too far gone.

 

[khamosh]

indiadiscussion is run by IT cell. What do you expect?

Proof?

you liked the above comment by a member but for this one you need proof, why aren't you asking proof from both of them? just curious.

BJP IT cells exist and has been covered by different newspapers extensively. Most members in those groups are volunteers and it's not hard to say that some of those might be on reddit as well.

same goes with other parties, what's your point?

 

[raksrules]

I am already banned there.

 

[blr_p]

But that was then and things change, you and I have changed, our circumstances have changed, our needs have changed. I am not asking you to vote for this or that. Far from it. I am just suggesting that we should keep an open mind, listen to all and vote to serve our own best interests as per our current needs.

I can vote for whomever.

A vigilant citizenry is essential for a democracy. Government needs to be questioned by the opposition and the citizens. Opposition needs to keep in tune with the sign of the times. They all play crucial roles in a democracy.

The '77 election is probably when it began.

I think as long as we have democracy, all parties will try to serve the national interest, some more than the others at one time or the other. But the nuances will differ, our interests may differ and we may vote as per our interests.

When it comes to defense I prefer right wing. Way better at it than their leftie counterparts. And I see similar patterns in other countries.

That’s why we must listen to all. Whether in power or not.

I don't have the time or bandwidth. In case you haven't noticed I follow things happening in other countries also. Only way to do so is ignoring the opposition.