What is happening these days? Everyone is aping the west only. Urbanization and all are against Indian culture boss. Did you know 2000 years ago there were no malls? What existed 2000 years ago we want to recreate now. What? Progress? All that is western concept yaar! In Indian ethos, we have to always remain in one state forever. Who needs electricity and computers? Did you know 2000 years ago there were no power plants?
Look at west. Just they are sleeping with everyone. No one knows their father also. Hmm what? People in the west love their children and care about their family? Nonsense. Someone told me westerners don’t care about their children, so it must be true. After all they’re westerners man! Just they kick their children out after they turn 18. Is that love? Real love you know is making your children marry whom you want and remote controlling them till you die.
See I will tell you the truth. India you know used to be very great. Women were virgins, people were innocent, no one raised their voice, all elders were respected, and they peed milk and honey. Also when they farted the smell was like a rose. These days if someone passes gas means that’s all!
And what is all this nonsense about freedom? That is a western concept man. In the olden days our ancestors used to live in villages where people poked their noses into every else’s business. Don’t you know that an individual must sacrifice their life for the sake of the group? After all we have reincarnation and all. What is one life? If a person doesn’t accept the diktat of their group leaders means their property has to be confiscated, they will not be allowed to drink from the well, and if they try and form a new life somewhere else means we will make sure everyone else knows also. That is what is called real progress yaar!
Self respect and dignity are all very un-Indian you know. These dirty western people only have imposed this on us. How dare they tell us that our lives are worth something? I tell you my life is worthless! Who are you to say otherwise? And everyone else’s life is also nothing. And Indian Constitution? Just a piece of paper imposed on us by Britishers robbing us of the right to control others. You don’t know only. A document giving people freedom is actually an instrument of oppression! Who wants equality? That is a western concept man!
And blindly we are following. These days women can divorce and all. Did you know in olden days women used to be the property of their husbands? That is true civilization man! Today just they think they own their bodies and are having sex willy nilly. Men? What about men? They can have sex no problem! How you can compare men and women? Idiot fellow. All that is just western propaganda man!
See in olden days a farmer’s son could only be a farmer. What is wrong with that? After all, no one has the right to look for a better life. People knew their place. They would not dare look above themselves and think they can be something more. Just people are born by chance into their line of work means their bad luck boss! Fate and all. Anything else is all western concept. Try and understand.
Also look at their lifestyle. Just they are idolizing Michael Jackson and useless singers. In our land we look up to Mahatma Gandhi and Vivekananda. What? US has holidays for Martin Luther and George Washington and also a holiday for remembering the Holocaust? That and all is meaningless. I don’t know why. It goes against my opinions so I will ignore. Next?
See how west is exploiting nature? Just in the name of development they are razing trees and all. We Indians used to live in harmony with the surroundings. No no I can’t hear you. What are you talking about national parks, and environmental movement, and preservation of forests? That and all err…I don’t know. Forget yaar, forget! Just you need to understand how west is evil. That’s all!
See how in India we have family support systems for old people? In west means they don’t care about the aged. Just they are left to starve and fend for themselves. Eh? What is this “social security” and all? All that is western concept man! Don’t listen to all that. Just they are trying to tempt you.
Don’t get fooled ok?
Wow…just wow. This post was meant to be satirical. I guess I’ll be needing more popcorn. “A Western View” has basically turned this into “Everything that’s wrong with the West.” Goodness.
In reply to RenKiss
Sorry, mistyped my email.
If you can read my comment again, nowhere did I ask whether or not you support the issues I mentioned. I specifically asked you if those should or should not be illegal. You don’t support tipping but tipping is not illegal. One does not support murders but murders are illegal. So I repeat my question whether or not you think the 3 examples I mentioned should be illegal. Yes or no?
Btw, why did you feel that I was being disrespectful or impolite? Did I abuse you in any way? By saying nobody cares I meant that your supporting or not supporting something is irrelevant with respect to the question I asked. If you picked out my comment to be impolite just for the sake of avoiding my simple question, that’s another matter.
In reply to Vinay
Boss, if you ask “Do you support this” vs “Should this be illegal”, in this context it’s the same type of question. Move on.
In reply to bhagwad
Strange! I read my comments over and over again but still couldn’t find where I asked you if you support anything or not. And I even gave you an example how supporting something or not doesn’t make it legal or illegal. But still if you equate “do not support” with “should be illegal” I’ll move on. So do we take it that the above 3 examples should be illegal since you clearly said you do not support them???
Not a very constructive comment, but I like this post immensely.
“Disneyland is a privately owned organization. Freedom of expression only relates to non interference by the government, not by private organizations.”
What is this ridiculous theory of privately owned organizations ? Does a person lose his rights when he is associated with a private organization ? If a person visiting disneyland is beaten up and even killed by another person, and the disneyland authorities refuse to do anything about it, does that mean the victim doesn’t have any rights ? Shouldn’t the government interfere and prosecute the accused even if an incident happened inside disneyland ?
In reply to Purple Cloud
“Does a person lose his rights when he is associated with a private organization ?”
If you’re inside my house, you have to obey my rules. If you say something I don’t like I have every right to throw you out of my property. That’s just common sense.
Similarly, this is my blog. You may not like it, but I can choose to delete every comment you’ve made and you can’t do anything about it or take me to court over it. That doesn’t mean you’ve lost your freedom of expression. You can still open your own website and say whatever you want.
Property rights trump freedom of expression rights.
In reply to bhagwad
Yes, and even if you decide to physically throw someone out of your property, you have every right to do so. But you cannot break his bones or stab him with a knife. In such a case, the person can and will take you to court. So, not everything you do under the boundaries of your own property is beyond the rule of law.
“Property rights trump freedom of expression rights.”
Exactly. So do many other rights such as freedom to life. Property rights do not trump Freedom to Life. You have finally accepted that Freedom of expression is not absolute. Even though your freedom to express yourself does not harm anyone physically, but if you are not on your own property, even the law does not ensure your right of expression. Thus, the Freedom of expression does not hold an equal and absolute position as do other fundamental rights.
In reply to Purple Cloud
I’ve always maintained that the limit of freedom is if it restricts anyone else’s freedom.
Stabbing a person when they’re in your property violates their property rights since a person’s body is their property. It’s pretty easy to figure this one out.
None of this is new.
Bhagwad, going back to Disneyland, you mentioned Disneyland is private property. TOday, Disneyland usually prohibits heavily tattooed persons from entrance into the park. Now, with that in mind, what is the difference between a person who is heavily tattooed and a Black person. If Disneyland does not allow a person who is black to enter the park, it is illegal under civil rights/discrimination laws. At the same time, the tatooed person can argue that “he was born with the tatoo mentality” rigth? HOw is one discrimination and the other is not?
o regarding the 7 deadly words: “As the Second Circuit said in its opinion, “We face a media landscape that would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978. Cable television was still in its infancy. The Internet was a project run out of the Department of Defense with several hundred users. Not only did YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter not exist, but their founders were either still in diapers or not yet conceived. In this environment, broadcast television undoubtedly possessed a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.” ”
this is the only reason that the seven deadly words don’t really apply today outside of Primetime. They still exist on primetime and radio, but are an “old hat” as you mentioned elsewhere, which is fair.
BTW, in protests in America, people usually get hit by rubber bullets or pepper spray. This happened recently at UC Davis. With this in mind, isn’t someone getting hit by a rubber bullets having their body, or property damadged as you say? Isn’t this violating a person’s property?
In reply to Western Point of View
“If Disneyland does not allow a person who is black to enter the park, it is illegal under civil rights/discrimination laws. At the same time, the tatooed person can argue that “he was born with the tatoo mentality” rigth? HOw is one discrimination and the other is not?”
This is a very good point and one I don’t have an easy answer too. I actually believe you should be allowed to discriminate against any person even based on race in your private business. On the other hand, there’s no doubt that the civil rights act has had a tremendous benefit. So I’m conflicted about this and a few other issues where I’m on the edge.
Coming to riots, I’m sure every country in the world has riots for something or the other. I don’t believe that means that all countries are equal. In some places, riots are far far more common and there has to be an underlying reason for that. Sure, there’s an entire wikipedia page dedicated to riots in the US. But the fact remains that they can be listed on one page! If we try doing that for riots in a place like India, making such a list itself would be impossible!
And yes – of course being hit with rubber bullets is a violation of one’s body/property. Which is why use of force is only justified when the rioters themselves are damaging someone else’s property. Otherwise it’s a peaceful protest.
btw i found this interesting on “the dark side of freedom of speech”
“Gerald Weber, of Gerry Weber’s Law Offices, agreed that there should be limits to what people can say in certain instances. Weber explained that even in the United States, where freedom of speech is highly protected, there are instances when that protection can be lost. “If knowingly false speech is not reasonably identified as being fiction, and the speech can impact disaster relief and citizen preparedness in a disaster, there is a strong argument that free speech protections are lost. Though much will depend on the particular charges brought,” Weber said.”
also, “Trolls, like @comfortablysmug, whose identity was revealed by BuzzFeed as Shashank Tripathia, knowingly posted blatantly false information that could have caused mass panic and fear across an already devastated population.” this was an issue on twitter that blatantly posted false information after the New York Hurricane.
ALso, you mentioned Disneyland and private property. Well in the United States, most primetime networks and news agencies are private companies. If they banned certain speeches and also banned certain people the ability to speak, isn’t that a vioaltion of Freedom of Speech? I mean they are private companies, don’t they have the right to do so? But then again, they are also our only source for news.
In reply to Western Point of View
“Well in the United States, most primetime networks and news agencies are private companies. If they banned certain speeches and also banned certain people the ability to speak, isn’t that a vioaltion of Freedom of Speech?”
No one can ban the ability to speak. No one can stop another from starting their own website and saying anything they want, or putting up a box in a park and spreading their ideas.
TV networks are private organizations – they can choose not to air anything they want.
In reply to bhagwad
websites in the US are privately owned domains. They can also chose to prevent someone from starting a website and ideas, right? If the domain holder (which in the US is almost a monopoly) doesn’t like your speech, what then?
Also, in the US, the cable/internet system is a monopoly. Only 2-3 companies provide internet service. If all 3 of them don’t like what you have to say, what then?
Doesn’t twitter, also another company, have this right?
Google is a company. Doesn’t it have a right if it wants to to prevent certain types of speech?
Since ALL information is provided by a private corporation, what then?
They can then successfully ban your ability to speak, right?
In reply to Western Point of View
Just buy your own domain! Like I have. It’s ridiculously cheap.
“If all 3 of them don’t like what you have to say, what then?”
Internet companies don’t censor speech they don’t like. That’s not their job. That’s like the electricity company not giving you electricity because they don’t like the brand of your toaster. It doesn’t work that way.
“Since ALL information is provided by a private corporation, what then?”
Like I said, just get your own domain. Look at my website.
In reply to bhagwad
that’s where things can get complicated. The public domain may also be affected by such censorship. Obviously, if you put kiddie porno, that is one thing. Also, if you put up blatantly false information that is another.
You are right regarding your own domain, however, so I’ll take back what I said on that issue.
BTW, internet companies have their own ways of censorship. Google will maybe place a certain search item on the 20th page of your search if they don’t like it, for example. Isn’t it in their own interest to do so?
The toaster example may not be too pertinent, since it does not pertain to information per se. What the Electric company could do is not recognzie this company as a toaster company, but rather a terrorist organization and post it on their websites. If they are powerful enough, people would fall into believing it, right? Again, this is not really about expression/speech, but the powers of certain things.
BTW, internet companeis CAN censor you. If Time Warner sees you talking about certain things, they have a right to shut you down, right? Someone I knew was downloading some information regarding a Muslim cleric, and received a warning from Time Warner about downloading such material. What is that all about?
It isn’t their job, but they have the power to do it anyways.
In reply to Western Point of View
These are legally dubious moves by Time Warner. The law on this is still evolving. We’ll know after a few more years have passed.
In general though, censoring material draw hugely negative media attention in the US via the Streisand effect. It’s very bad business for a telco to censor stuff especially since they’re already protected by the DMCA safe harbor clause.
also in NY law:
“A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident… when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he: Initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged occurrence or impending occurrence of a crime, catastrophe or emergency under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result….”
Is that freedom of speech, even if the speech is knowingly false?
In reply to Western Point of View
I’ll just defer to whatever the courts say on this one.
In reply to bhagwad
i wanted to reply down here for the sake of streamlining.
Who is to say if a protest is “peaceful.” Back in the 70s, those protests were deemed “violent” while the protesting group said they were “peaceful.” Rubber bullets were fired upon.
So if the protesting group is to say they are being “peaceful” while the government in charge says otehrwise, who is rigth? Who controls the information? Who is the one with the rubber bullets at hand?
it is all subjective at that point.
This is why Westernism, as good as it can be, is very arbitrary. You alone mentioned your conflict about Civil Rights and being able to ban certain people.
Think of it this way. You run a Hindu organization based on religious principles in the United States. You, however, only are able to employ Brahman caste members. Under the Civil Rights acts and the such, is this technically legal? The hindu side would say it is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights (freedom of religion) if people for them to hire anyone other than Brahman. The other side would say it is a violation of Civil Rights.
Same with Christians and gays. Don’t Christian churches have the right to not employ gays? Technically, the courts do not recognize homosexual cases in cases of Civil Rights.
Westernism is TOO subjective and arbitrary. It is nice and pretty compared to say India, but the loopholes are too great.
BTW, the reason India has so many more riots compared to the US are a variety of other factors. THis includes poverty (1 in 4 people in India. This simply doesn’t exist in the US), unemployment (c’mon above 15% compared to US’s 7%), and ability’s “Democratic” mentality versus the US’s “republic” mentality.
Most countries you mention have issues of poverty and unemployment. This is why people riot. They don’t have stuff, they get pissed off and they destroy other people’s stuff. It is illegal, but there are so many people without stuff, law enforcement cannot handle the people who lack stuff from destroying the stuff that belogn to the people who are fortuante enough who have stuff.
The US, most people have stuff.
Same with say Saudi Arabia or the UAE. They have extreme restrictions, yet most of their people have stuff. They are satisfied and therefore feel no need to riot.
In reply to Western Point of View
“Who is to say if a protest is “peaceful.””
I’ll let the courts consider the facts and reach a decision on that one. With cameras and live feeds we can easily find out what happened.
“Westernism is TOO subjective and arbitrary.”
Not too. The courts decide based on well established principles of jurisprudence. That’s their job.
you mention some interesting thigns, btw, on your liberal conflicts page.
This is why Westernism is too arbitrary. I mean, what is it based on? People’s opinions? What society deems fit? One can EASILY come to a point where the society’s status quo deems a particular group sub-human and, therefore, should not have equal access to certain rights. Nazi Germany did this for years. So did the US under Jim Crowe laws until the 70s.
Some things I find interesting:
Adultery–if, say India, places in the contract of marriage that if one partner trangresses the limits of that marriage in terms of adultery, isn’t that person legally responsible? If marriage itself is a legal principle, why not place laws on it? Marriage is recognzied as a legal union in the US, so with that in mind, why not make adultery illegal? Aren’t you breaching a contract?
Such conflicts simply show me Westernism is nice, but too arbitrary. A better, solid, more concrete system is necessary.
Let me provide another example. This is something I hold DEARLY in the US, not SPeech, but the right to bear arms. I have a right to hold weapons.
With this in mind, isn’t a nuclear weapon considered a weapon. If I had the money, why can I not purchase my own nuclear war head? Who says no? Isn’t it my right?
I mean I can own an AR-15 which can potentially kill hundreds of people, so why not an Atom bomb?
This is where the arbitrary of Westernism kinda comes into play.
In reply to Western Point of View
I don’t believe that sex has anything to do with marriage. You can get married and not have sex and you can have sex and not get married. Two separate things. Some countries like India need “grounds” for divorce of which sexual incompatibility is one. But most advanced countries have no fault divorces where the reasons are unimportant.
Westernism is not arbitrary. The presence of gray areas is a sign of maturity.
In reply to bhagwad
I was going to respond, but again, i’ll do it at the bottom.
btw, regarding the toaster again, doesn’t the Electric COmpany hold the right to “refuse service?” I mean if Disneyland can prevent heavily tattooed people from entering the park, why shouldn’t the Electric Company not be able to give you electricity based on your toaster? Here in the Cali for example, Southern California Edison is a private company, but at the same time, it is the only company that provides Electricity in So Cal. Therefore, as a private company, if they don’t like your toaster, don’t they technically hold the right to refuse service to you?
In reply to Western Point of View
The power companies run their pipes via public land, and they’re a state granted monopoly. They’re not a pure private company and so don’t have the same protections.
Same for Internet companies and carriers making use of public spectrum.
In reply to bhagwad
the power companies are monopolies, but are special monopolgies. They are not state granted per se. They are simply monopolgized due to infrastructure, etc.
You are correct about the power companies. It isn’t that they use public land, but they are monopolies in the sense of other forms of infrastructure.
So essentially i was playing out a scenario that in fact isn’t true, so I apologize for that one.
The companies that provide ISP’s, however, are completely privatized in the sense that you’ll have maybe 2 comapnies in one area competing against each other. Both companies do have grounds to basically stop serving you internet.
Now sex and marraige–it depends on the institution. Marriage is a contractual institution often recognized by the government, right?
Now let me provide you a non-Western example.
For example, in an Islamic marraige institution, sex is apart of hte marriage. The contract spells out that if either party does not desire in partaking in sexual intercourse, one member of the party can take this claim to the courts and explain that one party member refuses to have sex (husband or wife). This is because one that enters the marriage contract is required to be bound by the contractual agreements. If a man, for example, is impotent and did not tell the wife or her family of this, the wife is legally allowed to seek an anullment of the marriage. If one member of the contract is found to have committed adultery, the other has the legal right to seek to terminate the contract (marriage).
Why do I bring this up with adultery and sex (i know this is another one of your topics, not this one)? Well the United States recognizes marriage as a legally binding institution. With this in mind, if, say the state of Texas, requires that married couples follow certain rules otherwise one member of the party by the contract can find reason to nullify it, can’t adultery be apart of this contract?
In the Western “dating” world, this wouldn’t apply. Sex and marraige are different. What is the differnce? Marriage is a legaly binding contract essentially. The marriage occurs not only under the instituion itself, but also recognized by the governing body.
As you did mention, however, the US has a “no fault” divorce system. Islamic systems also allow divorces based on “irreconilable differences” as well, so technically it is a no fault system as well.
Although the US does recognize the ” no fault system” the issue comes to child support, alimony and other payment/civil issues. So if you committed adultery, the US system may say you are clear, but the Civil Issues become a nightmare. Obviously, civil law is a whole other issue, however with that it mind, if the Civil Court finds you say guilty of committing adultery, even if you truly didn’t, they can essentially dictate how you pay alimony, divide your assets and how the child care will take place.
So if marriage is a contract, don’t the contract creators essentially have the right to insert an adultery clause banning either member of the party from partaking in adulterous activities?
If people want an “open relationship,” why even partake in the marriage contract in the first place? I mean don’t sign up for a contract that has certain requirements–marriage being one of them.
Regarding telco, you mentioned some great clauses I did look into and you do make great points. The issue is companies such as Time Warner, etc, have made such an incredible impact in commerce that they are the one’s that are actually lobbying and/or pushing for certain types of legislation. Obviously, you see this in terms of patent/corporate law when it applies to some pretty ridiculous things. With that in midn, with the progression of time, couldn’t the law simply favor the corporate status quo instead? Monsanto comes to mind with genetically modified foods and how they pollinate, for example.
Gray areas may be a sign of maturity, but the disenfranchised/disempowered people are essentially treated unfairly with such gray areas.
Back to how the primary reason I thoroughly believe WEsternism is arbitrary comes into regards with weapons. I value the 2nd Amendment, so why cannot I own say a Battle Tank or a nuke? I mean aren’t those techncially forms of arms?
In reply to Western Point of View
In the US at least as far as I know, the power companies are indeed state granted monopolies. You can’t start a power business of your own even if you have the money without special permission.
I’m still not getting why sex and marriage have any connection…
“if the Civil Court finds you say guilty of committing adultery, even if you truly didn’t, they can essentially dictate how you pay alimony, divide your assets and how the child care will take place.”
Nope. Property division, alimony and child support have nothing to do with “fault” or adultery. I used to write for a law firm, so I know this for a fact.
“So if marriage is a contract, don’t the contract creators essentially have the right to insert an adultery clause banning either member of the party from partaking in adulterous activities?”
That’s like saying if you’re married, you can’t stand on a roof and sing humpty dumpty. There’s no connection.
“If people want an “open relationship,” why even partake in the marriage contract in the first place? “
Why people get married is up to them. The reasons are of interest only to them.
“why cannot I own say a Battle Tank or a nuke? I mean aren’t those techncially forms of arms?”
I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s due to the potential for mass destruction. But again, I’ll leave that to the courts to decide.
In reply to bhagwad
good points about civil law, however just from personal experience, in the Civil cases at least, the argument can be made in terms of one or the other partner’s circumstances, state of mind etc etc. It was easy for me since my ex was a bit off and with that we never had to go through any Civil issues.
Now back to the marriage issue. In the West, I’d say the government technically doesn’t even have a place to recognize marraige, since marriage in itself is technically a religious union. Partnerships are one thing, but don’t recognize marriage. So with that, i’ll hand you the “roof” issue. HOWEVER, in say a religious land or religious law, since the establishment of what makes a marriage a marriage are clearly defined when both parties sign the contract, faults can be made.
This is something I don’t like about the West–why recognize marriage if marriages themselves vary from institution to institution. Also, why can’t groups, say like in London, have their own religious law regulation and family law and let them take care of themselves? So Hindus would have their own religious laws/coursts in whatever country and they can take care of things themselves.
Back to arms. An AR-15 rifle can also cause mass destruction at a certain level. These are rifles used in many of those school shootings, yet they are still legal. What’s the difference between a tank and an AR-15? Again, too arbitrary.
Also, if you own a nuclear weapon, like you mentioned earlier, shouldn’t you be personally responsible for what happens if you detonate it?
In reply to Western Point of View
“since marriage in itself is technically a religious union.”
Why?
“HOWEVER, in say a religious land or religious law”
Separation of church and state is another basic premise of western civilization.
“Also, why can’t groups, say like in London, have their own religious law regulation and family law and let them take care of themselves?”
What about those who are born into religious families and don’t want to be governed by religious law? And this can only hold true for civil law. In criminal law like murder, the laws have to be the same for the entire population. In India, civil law varies from religion to religion. But criminal law is the same. And those who don’t want to abide by religious law can simply choose a religious neutral law. For example I got married under the special marriage act of 1945 even though I was born a christian and my wife was born a hindu.
“An AR-15 rifle can also cause mass destruction at a certain level. These are rifles used in many of those school shootings, yet they are still legal. What’s the difference between a tank and an AR-15? Again, too arbitrary.”
Indeed, there is a debate in the US right now about just this. So we’ll see how it plays out.
i should say the arbitrary nature, lol. Arbitrary nature of Westernism