The comment is about the third point in "What outrage means". For reference, this is what you wrote:
"Third, there's the other question that usually comes up along with the imagined victimhood. Why only choose Hindu rituals? Why not show such ads using rituals of other Abrahamic faiths? Well, if some 82 per cent of the people in India are Hindus,...."
To the question "Why the Hindus are always the butt of reforms/jokes", you gave a reason that Hindus are the majority. Let us call it reason-A.
There is another reason-B. In most cases, lampooning or pointing out "backwardness" in Hindus cause a non-violent outrage, maybe a few court cases. But if any ad/standup-comic targets Muslims in our Muslim majority neighbours (or sometimes even in India), the consequence can be chopped-hands, beheaded torso and similar kinds of stuff. That is the reason the companies/agencies/standup-comics carefully avoid Muslims. As a Hindu, it enrages me, and I refuse to allow my religion to bear the burden of open-mindedness single-handedly.
I also find it disturbing that the reason-B did not cross your mind. Or even if it did cross your mind, you chose to omit it.
It would be better to not dogmatically enforce a set of beliefs (if consensus on what those would be could even be achieved) for Hinduism, which you called a burden, than to give up and be intolerant like the rest. Regarding the Who, it is us, the individual and the group.
You are one logical person, @Parkthebus. I, at times, fancy myself to be logical as well. I remember a Sanskrit shlok from Vidurniti "Conquer anger with non-anger, conquer evil with good.....".
But as I am growing older, I fail to keep my faith on winning evil with good or intolerance with tolerance. Intolerants considers tolerance as weakness. Expelliarmus can fight Avada-Kedavra only in fiction. In real life, sometimes, one needs to hit back AvadaKedavra with AvadaKedavra (or at the least a Cruciatus).
Ah, you have invoked the Paradox of Liberalism, Sambaran. But it has a way out, 'Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?', the answer is no. Anyone can put a point of view, but no one can force another to accept it.
Tolerance for those that chop hands, behead torsos is neither expected nor desired.
There's this paper on how New Zealand went about completing Agriculture reforms. This is the link : https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430601108086
The comment is about the third point in "What outrage means". For reference, this is what you wrote:
"Third, there's the other question that usually comes up along with the imagined victimhood. Why only choose Hindu rituals? Why not show such ads using rituals of other Abrahamic faiths? Well, if some 82 per cent of the people in India are Hindus,...."
To the question "Why the Hindus are always the butt of reforms/jokes", you gave a reason that Hindus are the majority. Let us call it reason-A.
There is another reason-B. In most cases, lampooning or pointing out "backwardness" in Hindus cause a non-violent outrage, maybe a few court cases. But if any ad/standup-comic targets Muslims in our Muslim majority neighbours (or sometimes even in India), the consequence can be chopped-hands, beheaded torso and similar kinds of stuff. That is the reason the companies/agencies/standup-comics carefully avoid Muslims. As a Hindu, it enrages me, and I refuse to allow my religion to bear the burden of open-mindedness single-handedly.
I also find it disturbing that the reason-B did not cross your mind. Or even if it did cross your mind, you chose to omit it.
"As a Hindu, it enrages me, and I refuse to allow my religion to bear the burden of open-mindedness single-handedly."
It's better to walk alone than follow the wrong crowd.
Can you explain your answer? Who/What, as per your reply, should be walking alone?
It would be better to not dogmatically enforce a set of beliefs (if consensus on what those would be could even be achieved) for Hinduism, which you called a burden, than to give up and be intolerant like the rest. Regarding the Who, it is us, the individual and the group.
You are one logical person, @Parkthebus. I, at times, fancy myself to be logical as well. I remember a Sanskrit shlok from Vidurniti "Conquer anger with non-anger, conquer evil with good.....".
But as I am growing older, I fail to keep my faith on winning evil with good or intolerance with tolerance. Intolerants considers tolerance as weakness. Expelliarmus can fight Avada-Kedavra only in fiction. In real life, sometimes, one needs to hit back AvadaKedavra with AvadaKedavra (or at the least a Cruciatus).
Ah, you have invoked the Paradox of Liberalism, Sambaran. But it has a way out, 'Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?', the answer is no. Anyone can put a point of view, but no one can force another to accept it.
Tolerance for those that chop hands, behead torsos is neither expected nor desired.