Sorry, I missed this:
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you do not like my stance of pining someone based on his religion[right][snapback]93343[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are certainly willing to pin <i>them</i>: your list names them, after all. Yet you say "you are not willing to pin them based on their religion". <- You are not willing to 'pin' their <i>religion</i>, you mean.
If they were all communist, would you have mentioned they were communist next to their names? If they were all nazis, would have mentioned they were nazis? I don't think you'd have left their ideology out if such were the case. Hindus have a special auto-reverence for the word religion (extending even to the illegitimate ideologies included in the umbrella term) that silences them when they should speak.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you do not like my stance of pining someone based on his religion[right][snapback]93343[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But when it is their <i>religion</i> that is driving them?
Is it that you believe the concerned persons are all 'anti-nationalist' and anti-Hindu for no other purpose than anti-nationalism and/or anti-Hinduism? Can you really believe that.
Is it really that alien a concept that ideologies themselves can be a threat rather than their actors (adherents)? By noting the religion that the actors in your list subscribe to, you are not "pinning" them based on it - you are correctly implicating their ideology. They are no more than merely the active agents thereof.
You <i>are</i> willing to "pin" them - but based on what you think is their mere anti-nationalism. However, anti-nationalism is not an ideology in itself - it has no creed, nothing it subscribes to. "Break up India" is not a 'final end' in itself. (Imagine they have accomplished it, what then? That's all?) So what does this 'anti-national' movement wish to replace it with? And why? For that one needs to know what the ideologies are that these actors adhere to, what drives them, why they choose to do what they do (defend Afzal Guru, write apologetics for the islamic murder of Hindus on the train, conceal/try to get away with their murders, lie about events like Suzanna Roy did on Godhra, bribe and create fake witness testimonies, allow in vast numbers of infiltrators from BD and TSP while expressly threatening to deport the far smaller numbers of Pakistani Hindus who have "illegally" settled in India).
Knowing their ideological allegiance is important, because it is their ideologies that indicate what they want to replace it all with. It tells one *why* they are "anti-national".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Feel free to step in. I will hand over this thread to you. You can feel free to have your choice of words. I will happy to contribute though.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Writing a person's religion in brackets where it is not obvious from their name can't be hard. It can't be offensive. Why does this bother you so?
Meanwhile, they have no problems whatsoever being communal and uniformly calling Hindus "fundamentalists", "fascists", calling Godhra "genocide".
What is it about India that they wish to break, what is it about the nation that they want destroyed? They are particularly anti-Hindu. Why? Their 'anti-nationalism' is not against christians and muslims in the nation, it is against Hindu Dharma. So they are <i>communal even in their 'anti-nationalism'</i>. But again, that's because it is no mere 'anti-nationalism', it is ideologically motivated:
- Muslims want to establish Mughalistan, so they are supportive of muslims in the nation (and their temporary allies, the christians) but are particularly against Hindus in their 'anti-nationalism' (=break up of India in order to remake it as mughalistan).
- Similarly, the christians want the country for their own, so they are for the christians in India (and their temporary allies, the muslims), but they are anti-Hindus in their 'anti-nationalism' (=break up of India in order to carry out the Vatican's conversion agenda which was publicly declared last time the pope came over).
Why does it come so hard to just state their ideology next to the name when this is *known*. Their religion (ideology) is important data that everyone reading your list deserves to know. Why would you conceal it from them? Of course certain elements will rush to silence you by calling you communal for including it, even as the same kind psecularly refrains from calling CNN-IBN communal for plastering an Om symbol all over the fabricated "Hindu Terrier" stories.
Finally,
You can't be intending this list merely for yourself, since you already know more aspects of the data than you have allowed into the list.
So: who is this list for? What do you want people to get out of it? What connections do you want them to understand? *Why* do you not want them to make certain other connections which they would be able to make if you had provided completer data (i.e. why are you leaving out the different actors' religious affiliation where this is christian; because when they are muslim it tends to more often be obvious)?
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you do not like my stance of pining someone based on his religion[right][snapback]93343[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are certainly willing to pin <i>them</i>: your list names them, after all. Yet you say "you are not willing to pin them based on their religion". <- You are not willing to 'pin' their <i>religion</i>, you mean.
If they were all communist, would you have mentioned they were communist next to their names? If they were all nazis, would have mentioned they were nazis? I don't think you'd have left their ideology out if such were the case. Hindus have a special auto-reverence for the word religion (extending even to the illegitimate ideologies included in the umbrella term) that silences them when they should speak.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 17 2009, 09:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you do not like my stance of pining someone based on his religion[right][snapback]93343[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But when it is their <i>religion</i> that is driving them?
Is it that you believe the concerned persons are all 'anti-nationalist' and anti-Hindu for no other purpose than anti-nationalism and/or anti-Hinduism? Can you really believe that.
Is it really that alien a concept that ideologies themselves can be a threat rather than their actors (adherents)? By noting the religion that the actors in your list subscribe to, you are not "pinning" them based on it - you are correctly implicating their ideology. They are no more than merely the active agents thereof.
You <i>are</i> willing to "pin" them - but based on what you think is their mere anti-nationalism. However, anti-nationalism is not an ideology in itself - it has no creed, nothing it subscribes to. "Break up India" is not a 'final end' in itself. (Imagine they have accomplished it, what then? That's all?) So what does this 'anti-national' movement wish to replace it with? And why? For that one needs to know what the ideologies are that these actors adhere to, what drives them, why they choose to do what they do (defend Afzal Guru, write apologetics for the islamic murder of Hindus on the train, conceal/try to get away with their murders, lie about events like Suzanna Roy did on Godhra, bribe and create fake witness testimonies, allow in vast numbers of infiltrators from BD and TSP while expressly threatening to deport the far smaller numbers of Pakistani Hindus who have "illegally" settled in India).
Knowing their ideological allegiance is important, because it is their ideologies that indicate what they want to replace it all with. It tells one *why* they are "anti-national".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Feel free to step in. I will hand over this thread to you. You can feel free to have your choice of words. I will happy to contribute though.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Writing a person's religion in brackets where it is not obvious from their name can't be hard. It can't be offensive. Why does this bother you so?
Meanwhile, they have no problems whatsoever being communal and uniformly calling Hindus "fundamentalists", "fascists", calling Godhra "genocide".
What is it about India that they wish to break, what is it about the nation that they want destroyed? They are particularly anti-Hindu. Why? Their 'anti-nationalism' is not against christians and muslims in the nation, it is against Hindu Dharma. So they are <i>communal even in their 'anti-nationalism'</i>. But again, that's because it is no mere 'anti-nationalism', it is ideologically motivated:
- Muslims want to establish Mughalistan, so they are supportive of muslims in the nation (and their temporary allies, the christians) but are particularly against Hindus in their 'anti-nationalism' (=break up of India in order to remake it as mughalistan).
- Similarly, the christians want the country for their own, so they are for the christians in India (and their temporary allies, the muslims), but they are anti-Hindus in their 'anti-nationalism' (=break up of India in order to carry out the Vatican's conversion agenda which was publicly declared last time the pope came over).
Why does it come so hard to just state their ideology next to the name when this is *known*. Their religion (ideology) is important data that everyone reading your list deserves to know. Why would you conceal it from them? Of course certain elements will rush to silence you by calling you communal for including it, even as the same kind psecularly refrains from calling CNN-IBN communal for plastering an Om symbol all over the fabricated "Hindu Terrier" stories.
Finally,
You can't be intending this list merely for yourself, since you already know more aspects of the data than you have allowed into the list.
So: who is this list for? What do you want people to get out of it? What connections do you want them to understand? *Why* do you not want them to make certain other connections which they would be able to make if you had provided completer data (i.e. why are you leaving out the different actors' religious affiliation where this is christian; because when they are muslim it tends to more often be obvious)?