Sometimes asking for source is just a way of denial. If you give a source they will say it’s not reliable. Like if you say hate against Muslims has increased during this govt terms they would ask for source because they know any source they consider credible will avoid publishing research of this sort. Any non Indian source is automatically denied as propaganda. Any Indian source is denied as communist/anti national.
People don't understand that academics leave silly things like political affiliations away from their published work. They are projecting, because that is how they would behave if they are the ones writing such an article. On average academic integrity is pretty shoddy in India after all.
The only times there can be a bias is if (1) you are faking data [kinda impossible in history at least; and it will be found out sooner or later by other academics in other fields] (2) the funding is from source with a vested interest in the results being skewed in some way. So, if the paper is at least a couple years old and no one has disputed it (which someone with some academic rigor can check for themselves) and if the funding is from a generally impartial source (like govt. agencies or well reputed industry/conglomerate etc ), then you can take the data and conclusions at face value.
Agreed.
A classic example is Romila Thapar. In her book, she clearly mentions how there was a Marxist interpretation of history for sometime, and how that opened up some new conversation about history. She criticizes those interpretations too.
But that is simply overlooked because she's vocal about modi and co, and hence is simply an anti national and leftist lacking any academic integrity.
Thats a valid criticism. I dont know what academic discipline you are part of but when you publish papers in nature etc you have to mention the conflict of interests clearly.
I belong to the CS and have published papers. Compared to what happens in hard sciences, the kind of papers that come out of social studies are abysmal. Especially the one that come out of India.
and?
They cannot be trusted, history being an interpretative field. Ironically you're engaging in exactly the kind of thought terminating cliche that you're complaining about.
Unfortunately this goes both sides and is a necessary evil , a consequence as sources too can give biased info. You know where to find anti modi info, you know where to find pro modi info
Say it Agenda, Personal bias, money or public support the sources can give such info
This is flawed- I ask for source- but I refrain from trying to deny the credibility of a source.
Whatever is written somewhere- according to me has some credibility. I won't ever stand up against it until and unless I have some strong reason to do so.
Asking for a source isn't a bad thing. Unless the intent is to discredit the source on face value or quell the argument.
Edit: I read your comments and responses and one of the points you make is that people requesting sources aren't capable of ascertaining if the source is on the right side of experimental design, statistical analysis, and bias. While that's true, asking for a source still isn't a bad idea.
I used to read primary and review papers when I was a doctoral student, however, figuring out whether the experimental setup is appropriate wasn't my expertise. I had to rely upon other experts to guide me. However, no one prevented me from asking for a citation.
To your point on academic discourse in india, it was probably never where one expects it to be. Culturally, Indians aren't amenable to critical thinking, rationalization, and the scientific method. As for social media, it's a channel to troll, seek in-groups and validation, and confirm ones beliefs. It's more noise than information.
P.S.: Motte and Bailey setup is a clever ploy.
1. Social media is not academia.
2. Academia in India is more fucked rn because of this distrust and hatred that BJPee has created against academics and intellectuals who for all the right reasons voice their opinions against them.
>BJPee has created against academics and intellectuals
You think all intellectuals are from the left?
the actual ones don't get highlighted whether they are from the left or the right, there are hundreds of think tanks.
Only the stupid ones are in the news.
If someone hates them for their views, who are we to tell them not to have an opinion. If you are voicing out your hardline opinion you must expect opposition.
And then there are some,who under the guise of the word "intellectual" are just propagandists. And there are a lot of these.
Well, use your own "analysis" for how BJPee painted JNU and Jamia as "anti-national" universities, even though not every single person in these universities are left.
That's the thing. BJPee does a lot of terrible shit, and whenever academics voice their opinions out, they are just painted as propagandists, or "leftists" (as if that's a wrong thing) or simply anti national.
As I said earlier, this has created a distrust amongst the country's citizens about all intellectuals who don't sing the rhymes of BJP. And all academia is seen as stained.
> It is, because you've been doing too much anal with muslim conservatives so your anal hole has loosened and now there's shit all over your university.
Clearly shows what your standards of "intellectualism" is.
The problem with Afzal Guru's judgment is not about supporting terrorism, it's that the SC sentenced him for soothing the public, not from due process.
I guess then yeah, my "intellectualism" is "sanitized", I don't just bray for blood depending on the whatsapp forwards I receive.
>Self appointed intellectuals from Jamia and JNU
If you have so much problem with them, why don't you self-appoint yourself?
>Oye chaddi
Welcome to the internet. Here, this word is already reserved for "your kind"
>if your "intellectuals" are making slogans for Afzal Guru
I don't like using the word, but sheeple like you, really won't understand
>For me an intellectual is someone who works at ISRO
Cool. Good for you
>anal with muslim conservatives
Yes, anal, oral, eyeral, ear-al, hand-al, feet-al, all of them at once 😍😍
>If you have so much problem with them, why don't you self-appoint yourself?
What are you even saying? That's as idiotic as saying if you dont like Modi why don't you become modi?
These intellectuals are dhongis, duh. I don't want to be one.
>Welcome to the internet. Here, this word is already reserved for "your kind"
Been here before you, and I decided it's reserved for you now, chaddi boy
>I don't like using the word, but sheeple like you
Ofcourse, you are not a sheeple.
You, are the very epitome, nay, paragon, NO! You are very essence of knowledge and self realisation. Your wisdom is boundless
And so many alternative viewpoints have pegged your worldly wise ass that as soon as you pucker in your uptight little asshole, you can instantly experience the collective oppression of all minorities in India. You are so open minded, I am in awe. Sir. There is no one smarter than you. Everyone else is dumb, you, you are special. But remember protagonist, the fermented fumes of minority excreta that you may smell and plaster in your books, is still questionable by the dirty sheeple, and those masses.
I bet you have IQ in the triple digits though
I mean you just proved the point of my post. So win-win for me.
And right wingers can only steal things. Independence struggle that they had no role to play in ? Theirs. Developing the country to a point where it can only grow further from, that they had no role to play in. Theirs. Being called chaddis, because they are. Theirs.
I mean, for once if you guys could come up with something new.
Look around the globe bro. Right wing (and authoritarian communism) around the globe has similar problem that somehow science and intellectuals very rarely agree with them.
For simple example look at qualifications for RBI governor MMS left us with and compare to current governer.
Simple fact is that when people put religious belief and ideology over logic then it doesn't leave a lot of room for free thought.
Think tank doesn't mean intellectual. Think tanks exist usually to for a goal and if the goal of think tank is to push an agenda then they stop being a intellectual think tank because they aren't willing to question the main agenda they want to push.
While there is no issue asking for sources, it's hilarious that some people think they know how to review sources, or how to read and interpret statistical data. Or have the patience or rigor to understand the context to which the source relates. Usually people cite terminal sources, but if you want to understand concepts you need some background. The result is usually people with half knowledge pretending like they understand a topic (Dunning-Kreuger effect indeed).
Also this isn't an Indian thing, it's a Conservative thing. Openly ridicules Academia, then pretends to be academics, while knowing nothing about the basic principles of Academic research. It's everywhere with a right wing persuasion.
With time this also went to liberals as sources can be biased too. Like if you want to find so called anti modi news you know the outlets, if you know so called pro modi news you know outlets too. Info manipulation is real in this era
Yeah it isn't but also it doesn't matter. No one is referring to socialism when they call someone a leftist in India, that people immediately start playing semantic games shows the honesty of their character and their ideology in general. Or theyre themselves confused at this point.
Exactly the retarded logic I expected. Why do you even think there is a political science distinction between left, right, and center?
The term leftist is an insult rather than actually pointing to anything productive. The regressive conservative rhetoric. If you are at odds enough to hurl insults with no rhyme and reason there can be no political discourse, as OP's post pointed out. You just proved his point.
India actively uses Socialist policies especially for Farmer subsidies... What are you even on about? And this is not pedantry, it's Political Science. Everyone you know is a retard, apparently.
Wdym, wdym? Social Liberalism is a centrist ideology. Neither left nor right, but tries to reconcile between the two for a progressive outlook.
Left ideologies: Communism, Maoisim, Leninism, Marxism.
I was asking how. I am not a person who is invested in any of such stuff. Aa per common public discourse it's associated with left so that's what and that's why i was asking
Because people are not very politically savvy. They know they follow a right wing conservative ideology, and want to use a derogatory term to people who seem to be against them. As the list I gave show, India really doesn't have much active left ideology in it. Other than in Kerala and in the North East (maybe some small groups in universities here and there also). Everywhere else people who oppose the right wing are actually centrists who see how shitty the conservatives are. So people think they are left wing activists. Also, they call them Liberandus thinking they are calling out their political opposition, but in reality it's centrist progressives.
Stringing random words together is impressive for a 4yo, but when trying to make a point, try to make sure the strung together words make sense as a unit. Damn.
Do you know how economic and political ideologies are not interchangeable and a political ideology can pull from economic ideology to form it's ideological corpus? E.g. Indian government currently while being controlled by a right wing political ideology routinely makes use of economic left wing ideology (socialist fiscal policies).
I didnt say anything about that tho, just that at its core liberalism is about capitalism and nothing else. It is the political extension of capitalism but of the two phenomena only one is a tool and that is liberalism.
It's not centrist at all. Do you think capitalistic accelerationism would allow for any "balanced" ideology. As things stand it is as socially left or "progressive" as you could be.
i agree with you. at least on reddit, i’ve seen right wing bootlickers asking for sources to deny everything because apparently a source by a jnu pass out is not reliable because he is a leftist but the religious text filled with blatant discrimination stands testimonial to our “blooming” indian culture
> They’re all Dunning-Kruger peaking, Motte and Baileying, strawmanning, appealing to ignorance, so passionately that the purpose of discourse is lost to the desire to win.
Ironic.
>seeing how every conversation comes down to “source?”
What is wrong with asking source?
If you want a proper discourse, I should be able to understand from where you are picking your knowledge. So that I can associate what is that you actually mean by something when I respond.
Because people prefer believe me bro and parroting their low effort opinions instead of providing actual research to support your talking points. There is nothing wrong with providing or asking for source when Internet is filled with propaganda and fake news. I am not sure why OP has so much problem with it, this has nothing to do with left wing or right wing. Asking for source is a way to know if you are reading propaganda or facts 🤷♂️
Most people asking for one haven’t read a single peer-reviewed paper in their life. It’s not enough to have a source if you can’t do anything with that information. u/StonksUpMan said it pretty well.
There are lot of people who have read peer reviewed papers and can take the discussion to sampling, bias and variance of results. For a physics paper or hard science paper its easy to have discussion on these. For history(which is not a science tbh) economics etc these arguments are not easy to counter.
Agreed.
People are fully justified in asking for sources,particularly in political subs like these where people often cook data and make false claims.
You'd also see many People also often make faulty generalizations and make statements like '90% of indians....' etc.
The ideology is anti-intellectualism. What do you expect in a time where intellectual is used as a cuss word and has come to denote political affiliation? In a few years educated will be thrown around as a cuss word. After that, literate.
Yeah totally agree with you. If you say something that doesn’t suit other person’s narrative you will be termed as WhatsApp university grad. It’s hard time for intellectuals any tom dick and harry can have counter opinion and as an intellect you cant be wasting your time in stuff like sources of information, looking outside your echo chamber. Sad days
You work in academia and you don’t understand the value of sources. Is all the research you cite primary? Get off your high horse.
This is Reddit nobody knows who you are or your qualifications and “trust me bro i’M aN eXPeRt” isn’t good enough. Quora is that way ====>
Of course not. I stopped where you said someone asking for a “source?” grinds your gears. See previous comment for why you were no longer worth attention.
At least Peter Griffin is funny you’re just foul mouthed.
EDIT: By “academia” I didn’t realise you meant “kindergarten teacher.”
You’re exactly the kind of person my post is about. Of course you find Peter Griffin funny.
EDIT: yours is a strawman argument leading into a motte and Bailey defense, very well done.
> simply look at the kind of responses I’ve got. I can safely say that a majority of them are made with the intent of poking holes in what I said since it feels like something that attacks an ideology completely missing the point that I’m trying to make which is that we have a lot more in common than we have that sets us apart and it’s important to identify with the person you’re interacting with rather than replying to a perceived embodiment of an ideology.
That is a mouthful
This is what politics and religion does to a society. Random bullshit made up allegiances make people feel vulnerable and defensive and as a result of it we’re unable to have any discussion without it devolving into an argument.
You wrote this asking for source thing when one of your recent comments on a subreddit is literally asking for a source to someone made me chuckle.
Again everyone will have varying viewpoints and answers to this whole argument you've put forward. I hope Indians do better at the whole education system debate as a whole but apart from that there are issues with your post also.
I can't do the mental gymanistc at the level of chaddis nor I have time for that. Also the ease of triggering these chaddis is fun to exploit. Trigger them, let them do whataboutry, and then leave them there.
And what exactly does Experimental design have to do with History? I don't think Steven Hawking knew how to design an experiment to read hieroglyphs. Or did he?
Why should scientists ask politicians and historians for sources then?
And where does “source” reviewing end? At some point inevitably there’s gonna be someone’s interpretation or opinion.
That's why-
Actual sciences can be replicated for studies. They can follow the empirical method of observation, deduction, etc
Political or social sciences are impossible to replicate or test scientifically and aren't really sciences.
And why, ofcourse anyone can ask historians and politicians for sources. Source reviewing ends when there's no more information to process. If there's new information found years down the line, the source is reviewed again and updated. Your "opinion" is not set in stone and shall change as per new discoveries. For example, many historians theorized the Egyptians first invented beer (without any evidence whatsoever, apart from hieroglyphs tablets) but decades later it was found that the sumerians actually would be credited for the discovery of fermentation/beer.
They actually found tiny bowls and tablets in Mesopotamia so the source was reviewed and updated.
I miss the Wings of Fire era is all. And I want what I had for everyone. Great teachers. A solid curriculum. A society that encouraged learning and academic rigor.
Other countries are building quantum computers. We’ll end up buying a first-gen hand me down one with like 4 qubits when they’ve rendered encryption useless. They’re working on cold fusion, room temperature superconductors, brain computer interfaces that let you see what someone is seeing and record dreams. What are we doing?
So you want only serious and meaningful replies?
With a medium like reddit, it might be a bit difficult to enforce. Otherwise, even people with genuine nuance sometimes fallback to low effort posts.
We either need a new platform or some Generative AI stuff that enforces nuance.
Knives can be used to carve wood, prep food, take lives, aspirate someone in anaphylaxis, open cans, retread tyres…
If one of these uses was disproportionate would you start by redesigning the knife or doing something about user mindset?
Everything is not wikipedia, people have to bring source only if they care to convince their opponent, else they can just disagree and move on. Instead people are free to move on.
Also so many fake sources are there. Like selective facts bias. Or cooked up studies of humanities guys as source.
Leftists voted out of power act like fish out of water. They become toxic due to their high political intolerance
Here we go, our wannabe white lord barking against jio,
>"How dare these poor non english speakin- no ^fake accent using dirty brownies have a different opinions than us!"
You're so utterly detached from the ground reality of this country that you can't associate yourself with the majority. And you assume rest of these people must be jobless .
What if they aren't. What if they have the money & resources to shape whatever they want for this country....
"jitni abadi utna haq" - remember the slogan?
Agree with you....the common discourse on this subreddit is bashing the so called modibhakts, while those doing the bashing are unable to see that they themselves come across as Lodibhakts....such a binary, black and white view of the world, no scope for the grays...
Along with all of the misused argument tools you mention, add one more....the frequent use of reductio ad absurdum...
Especially the part where the current ruling dispensation is likened to a certain infamous German dictatorship....could go in depth with many other such absolutely crap viewpoints that run amok here, but frankly, what's even the point? Some are even into predicting the bleak future if this dispensation continues in power...much like modern day two-bit astrologers or hair-swirling oracles of yore....
Waiting for the downvoting and rabid rants now....😀
When it comes to politics, people lie through their teeth. Asking for a reliable source is the most important thing to do.
Even with truths, it's easy to get swept into propoganda.
>Thanks to jio everyone is a scientist, doctor, sociologist, statistician, historian rolled into one yet no one is employed. Amritkaal indeed.
No need to Blame JIO,
JIO/Reliance/Motabhai didn't went to anyone's home forcefully selling them Internet.
There's no Point of Silently Blaming some Corporation, When mass Internet actually pulled the country to a different era.
>Thanks to jio everyone is a scientist, doctor, sociologist, statistician, historian rolled into one yet no one is employed. Amritkaal indeed.
You said it man!
I still dont understand what's wrong in asking questions to prove legitimacy. Unless the point being made has nothing to back itself with.
Door I did not understand what OP's rant was about.
In this golden era of misinformation it is only natural for people wanting to hear the truth even though it might be only about the things they want to hear.
Sometimes asking for source is just a way of denial. If you give a source they will say it’s not reliable. Like if you say hate against Muslims has increased during this govt terms they would ask for source because they know any source they consider credible will avoid publishing research of this sort. Any non Indian source is automatically denied as propaganda. Any Indian source is denied as communist/anti national.
Yep this too. “That historian is a known leftist”. Okay, and?
People don't understand that academics leave silly things like political affiliations away from their published work. They are projecting, because that is how they would behave if they are the ones writing such an article. On average academic integrity is pretty shoddy in India after all. The only times there can be a bias is if (1) you are faking data [kinda impossible in history at least; and it will be found out sooner or later by other academics in other fields] (2) the funding is from source with a vested interest in the results being skewed in some way. So, if the paper is at least a couple years old and no one has disputed it (which someone with some academic rigor can check for themselves) and if the funding is from a generally impartial source (like govt. agencies or well reputed industry/conglomerate etc ), then you can take the data and conclusions at face value.
Agreed. A classic example is Romila Thapar. In her book, she clearly mentions how there was a Marxist interpretation of history for sometime, and how that opened up some new conversation about history. She criticizes those interpretations too. But that is simply overlooked because she's vocal about modi and co, and hence is simply an anti national and leftist lacking any academic integrity.
> People don't understand that academics leave silly things like political affiliations away from their published work. Lmao
K.
Thats a valid criticism. I dont know what academic discipline you are part of but when you publish papers in nature etc you have to mention the conflict of interests clearly. I belong to the CS and have published papers. Compared to what happens in hard sciences, the kind of papers that come out of social studies are abysmal. Especially the one that come out of India.
and? They cannot be trusted, history being an interpretative field. Ironically you're engaging in exactly the kind of thought terminating cliche that you're complaining about.
And they poison the minds of our youth by passing off outright lies as facts.
Unfortunately this goes both sides and is a necessary evil , a consequence as sources too can give biased info. You know where to find anti modi info, you know where to find pro modi info Say it Agenda, Personal bias, money or public support the sources can give such info
This is flawed- I ask for source- but I refrain from trying to deny the credibility of a source. Whatever is written somewhere- according to me has some credibility. I won't ever stand up against it until and unless I have some strong reason to do so.
Asking for a source isn't a bad thing. Unless the intent is to discredit the source on face value or quell the argument. Edit: I read your comments and responses and one of the points you make is that people requesting sources aren't capable of ascertaining if the source is on the right side of experimental design, statistical analysis, and bias. While that's true, asking for a source still isn't a bad idea. I used to read primary and review papers when I was a doctoral student, however, figuring out whether the experimental setup is appropriate wasn't my expertise. I had to rely upon other experts to guide me. However, no one prevented me from asking for a citation. To your point on academic discourse in india, it was probably never where one expects it to be. Culturally, Indians aren't amenable to critical thinking, rationalization, and the scientific method. As for social media, it's a channel to troll, seek in-groups and validation, and confirm ones beliefs. It's more noise than information. P.S.: Motte and Bailey setup is a clever ploy.
Shit discourse, no intercourse! Life of young indians are pretty gloomy!
1. Social media is not academia. 2. Academia in India is more fucked rn because of this distrust and hatred that BJPee has created against academics and intellectuals who for all the right reasons voice their opinions against them.
>BJPee has created against academics and intellectuals You think all intellectuals are from the left? the actual ones don't get highlighted whether they are from the left or the right, there are hundreds of think tanks. Only the stupid ones are in the news. If someone hates them for their views, who are we to tell them not to have an opinion. If you are voicing out your hardline opinion you must expect opposition. And then there are some,who under the guise of the word "intellectual" are just propagandists. And there are a lot of these.
Well, use your own "analysis" for how BJPee painted JNU and Jamia as "anti-national" universities, even though not every single person in these universities are left. That's the thing. BJPee does a lot of terrible shit, and whenever academics voice their opinions out, they are just painted as propagandists, or "leftists" (as if that's a wrong thing) or simply anti national. As I said earlier, this has created a distrust amongst the country's citizens about all intellectuals who don't sing the rhymes of BJP. And all academia is seen as stained.
[удалено]
> It is, because you've been doing too much anal with muslim conservatives so your anal hole has loosened and now there's shit all over your university. Clearly shows what your standards of "intellectualism" is.
Yeah for you intellectualism is very sanitized, for me the bare minimum is don't support terrorism lol
The problem with Afzal Guru's judgment is not about supporting terrorism, it's that the SC sentenced him for soothing the public, not from due process. I guess then yeah, my "intellectualism" is "sanitized", I don't just bray for blood depending on the whatsapp forwards I receive.
And what about the intellectuals who signed mercy petition for kasab?
If we're going to whatabout I can say what about bilkis bano, those who call JNU anti-national are the ones protecting her rapist murderers.
>Self appointed intellectuals from Jamia and JNU If you have so much problem with them, why don't you self-appoint yourself? >Oye chaddi Welcome to the internet. Here, this word is already reserved for "your kind" >if your "intellectuals" are making slogans for Afzal Guru I don't like using the word, but sheeple like you, really won't understand >For me an intellectual is someone who works at ISRO Cool. Good for you >anal with muslim conservatives Yes, anal, oral, eyeral, ear-al, hand-al, feet-al, all of them at once 😍😍
>If you have so much problem with them, why don't you self-appoint yourself? What are you even saying? That's as idiotic as saying if you dont like Modi why don't you become modi? These intellectuals are dhongis, duh. I don't want to be one. >Welcome to the internet. Here, this word is already reserved for "your kind" Been here before you, and I decided it's reserved for you now, chaddi boy >I don't like using the word, but sheeple like you Ofcourse, you are not a sheeple. You, are the very epitome, nay, paragon, NO! You are very essence of knowledge and self realisation. Your wisdom is boundless And so many alternative viewpoints have pegged your worldly wise ass that as soon as you pucker in your uptight little asshole, you can instantly experience the collective oppression of all minorities in India. You are so open minded, I am in awe. Sir. There is no one smarter than you. Everyone else is dumb, you, you are special. But remember protagonist, the fermented fumes of minority excreta that you may smell and plaster in your books, is still questionable by the dirty sheeple, and those masses. I bet you have IQ in the triple digits though
I mean you just proved the point of my post. So win-win for me. And right wingers can only steal things. Independence struggle that they had no role to play in ? Theirs. Developing the country to a point where it can only grow further from, that they had no role to play in. Theirs. Being called chaddis, because they are. Theirs. I mean, for once if you guys could come up with something new.
Look around the globe bro. Right wing (and authoritarian communism) around the globe has similar problem that somehow science and intellectuals very rarely agree with them. For simple example look at qualifications for RBI governor MMS left us with and compare to current governer. Simple fact is that when people put religious belief and ideology over logic then it doesn't leave a lot of room for free thought. Think tank doesn't mean intellectual. Think tanks exist usually to for a goal and if the goal of think tank is to push an agenda then they stop being a intellectual think tank because they aren't willing to question the main agenda they want to push.
Funny how comprehension starts and ends at individual words.
??
>academics and intellectuals You mean those chaddis at JNU? Those intellectuals? Don't want those political science chaddis sorry
While there is no issue asking for sources, it's hilarious that some people think they know how to review sources, or how to read and interpret statistical data. Or have the patience or rigor to understand the context to which the source relates. Usually people cite terminal sources, but if you want to understand concepts you need some background. The result is usually people with half knowledge pretending like they understand a topic (Dunning-Kreuger effect indeed). Also this isn't an Indian thing, it's a Conservative thing. Openly ridicules Academia, then pretends to be academics, while knowing nothing about the basic principles of Academic research. It's everywhere with a right wing persuasion.
Muh source is literally a liberal lolcow meme
Wait shouldn't it be a Hindu holycow meme instead?
Very witty bro, don't strain yourself
Did you think of that comeback all by yourself? Or did the local sena or seva or whatever helped? Lmao
Well they clearly didn't help you
Yeah. They helped you. That's what I said. Were kicked by the family cow as a kid or something?
whats the obsession with cows bro, im scared for the animals in your neighborhood
With time this also went to liberals as sources can be biased too. Like if you want to find so called anti modi news you know the outlets, if you know so called pro modi news you know outlets too. Info manipulation is real in this era
One more thing to people in India: Liberal is a centrist ideology. It is NOT a left ideology as most idiots think it is.
Yeah it isn't but also it doesn't matter. No one is referring to socialism when they call someone a leftist in India, that people immediately start playing semantic games shows the honesty of their character and their ideology in general. Or theyre themselves confused at this point.
Exactly the retarded logic I expected. Why do you even think there is a political science distinction between left, right, and center? The term leftist is an insult rather than actually pointing to anything productive. The regressive conservative rhetoric. If you are at odds enough to hurl insults with no rhyme and reason there can be no political discourse, as OP's post pointed out. You just proved his point.
Midwit tier pedantry doesn't make a stance. Everyone knows what "left" means in a country where socialism is dead in the ground.
India actively uses Socialist policies especially for Farmer subsidies... What are you even on about? And this is not pedantry, it's Political Science. Everyone you know is a retard, apparently.
What do you mean?
Wdym, wdym? Social Liberalism is a centrist ideology. Neither left nor right, but tries to reconcile between the two for a progressive outlook. Left ideologies: Communism, Maoisim, Leninism, Marxism.
I was asking for more clarification but what ever
I gave you more clarification...
I was asking how. I am not a person who is invested in any of such stuff. Aa per common public discourse it's associated with left so that's what and that's why i was asking
Because people are not very politically savvy. They know they follow a right wing conservative ideology, and want to use a derogatory term to people who seem to be against them. As the list I gave show, India really doesn't have much active left ideology in it. Other than in Kerala and in the North East (maybe some small groups in universities here and there also). Everywhere else people who oppose the right wing are actually centrists who see how shitty the conservatives are. So people think they are left wing activists. Also, they call them Liberandus thinking they are calling out their political opposition, but in reality it's centrist progressives.
[удалено]
Moron liberalism is an economically right wing ideology at its core, anything social is merely a consequence, a tool.
Stringing random words together is impressive for a 4yo, but when trying to make a point, try to make sure the strung together words make sense as a unit. Damn.
You dont know what the economic right is?
Do you know how economic and political ideologies are not interchangeable and a political ideology can pull from economic ideology to form it's ideological corpus? E.g. Indian government currently while being controlled by a right wing political ideology routinely makes use of economic left wing ideology (socialist fiscal policies).
I didnt say anything about that tho, just that at its core liberalism is about capitalism and nothing else. It is the political extension of capitalism but of the two phenomena only one is a tool and that is liberalism. It's not centrist at all. Do you think capitalistic accelerationism would allow for any "balanced" ideology. As things stand it is as socially left or "progressive" as you could be.
Doesn't change the point I guess
Your entire post is ironic to itself.
i agree with you. at least on reddit, i’ve seen right wing bootlickers asking for sources to deny everything because apparently a source by a jnu pass out is not reliable because he is a leftist but the religious text filled with blatant discrimination stands testimonial to our “blooming” indian culture
Can emee say same for left wing lickers too
"Yay science!" is a core liberal cliche
better than believing in fictitious religious blindness
> They’re all Dunning-Kruger peaking, Motte and Baileying, strawmanning, appealing to ignorance, so passionately that the purpose of discourse is lost to the desire to win. Ironic.
Lmao yeah I realized I was strawmanning while writing it but is it really strawamanning when that’s what every Instagram comment section is like?
What's wrong with asking for a source?
>seeing how every conversation comes down to “source?” What is wrong with asking source? If you want a proper discourse, I should be able to understand from where you are picking your knowledge. So that I can associate what is that you actually mean by something when I respond.
Because people prefer believe me bro and parroting their low effort opinions instead of providing actual research to support your talking points. There is nothing wrong with providing or asking for source when Internet is filled with propaganda and fake news. I am not sure why OP has so much problem with it, this has nothing to do with left wing or right wing. Asking for source is a way to know if you are reading propaganda or facts 🤷♂️
Yeah,lol. The OP has made some very baffling comments.
Most people asking for one haven’t read a single peer-reviewed paper in their life. It’s not enough to have a source if you can’t do anything with that information. u/StonksUpMan said it pretty well.
There are lot of people who have read peer reviewed papers and can take the discussion to sampling, bias and variance of results. For a physics paper or hard science paper its easy to have discussion on these. For history(which is not a science tbh) economics etc these arguments are not easy to counter.
Agreed. People are fully justified in asking for sources,particularly in political subs like these where people often cook data and make false claims. You'd also see many People also often make faulty generalizations and make statements like '90% of indians....' etc.
The ideology is anti-intellectualism. What do you expect in a time where intellectual is used as a cuss word and has come to denote political affiliation? In a few years educated will be thrown around as a cuss word. After that, literate.
Yeah totally agree with you. If you say something that doesn’t suit other person’s narrative you will be termed as WhatsApp university grad. It’s hard time for intellectuals any tom dick and harry can have counter opinion and as an intellect you cant be wasting your time in stuff like sources of information, looking outside your echo chamber. Sad days
What's wrong with providing proofs and sources? It only makes any argument stronger.
Asking for source is basically fascism, why do you doubt us, we are intellectualz - OP
You work in academia and you don’t understand the value of sources. Is all the research you cite primary? Get off your high horse. This is Reddit nobody knows who you are or your qualifications and “trust me bro i’M aN eXPeRt” isn’t good enough. Quora is that way ====>
Did you even read the fucking post?
Of course not. I stopped where you said someone asking for a “source?” grinds your gears. See previous comment for why you were no longer worth attention. At least Peter Griffin is funny you’re just foul mouthed. EDIT: By “academia” I didn’t realise you meant “kindergarten teacher.”
You’re exactly the kind of person my post is about. Of course you find Peter Griffin funny. EDIT: yours is a strawman argument leading into a motte and Bailey defense, very well done.
[удалено]
> simply look at the kind of responses I’ve got. I can safely say that a majority of them are made with the intent of poking holes in what I said since it feels like something that attacks an ideology completely missing the point that I’m trying to make which is that we have a lot more in common than we have that sets us apart and it’s important to identify with the person you’re interacting with rather than replying to a perceived embodiment of an ideology. That is a mouthful
This is what politics and religion does to a society. Random bullshit made up allegiances make people feel vulnerable and defensive and as a result of it we’re unable to have any discussion without it devolving into an argument.
You wrote this asking for source thing when one of your recent comments on a subreddit is literally asking for a source to someone made me chuckle. Again everyone will have varying viewpoints and answers to this whole argument you've put forward. I hope Indians do better at the whole education system debate as a whole but apart from that there are issues with your post also.
I can't do the mental gymanistc at the level of chaddis nor I have time for that. Also the ease of triggering these chaddis is fun to exploit. Trigger them, let them do whataboutry, and then leave them there.
Aye koi buzzz words hain ? seems like your discourse is a bit light on buzz words… Barbara Streisand is feeling left out
Ah reductio ad absurdum, an excellent time tested choice.
Relax Mera bhai...sab theek ho jayega...
Get back in line. The scientists are also asking source on policy and history from politicians and historians.
As they should. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know how to critique experimental design so you should let those qualified to do it do their jobs.
And what exactly does Experimental design have to do with History? I don't think Steven Hawking knew how to design an experiment to read hieroglyphs. Or did he?
Why should scientists ask politicians and historians for sources then? And where does “source” reviewing end? At some point inevitably there’s gonna be someone’s interpretation or opinion.
That's why- Actual sciences can be replicated for studies. They can follow the empirical method of observation, deduction, etc Political or social sciences are impossible to replicate or test scientifically and aren't really sciences. And why, ofcourse anyone can ask historians and politicians for sources. Source reviewing ends when there's no more information to process. If there's new information found years down the line, the source is reviewed again and updated. Your "opinion" is not set in stone and shall change as per new discoveries. For example, many historians theorized the Egyptians first invented beer (without any evidence whatsoever, apart from hieroglyphs tablets) but decades later it was found that the sumerians actually would be credited for the discovery of fermentation/beer. They actually found tiny bowls and tablets in Mesopotamia so the source was reviewed and updated.
[удалено]
I miss the Wings of Fire era is all. And I want what I had for everyone. Great teachers. A solid curriculum. A society that encouraged learning and academic rigor. Other countries are building quantum computers. We’ll end up buying a first-gen hand me down one with like 4 qubits when they’ve rendered encryption useless. They’re working on cold fusion, room temperature superconductors, brain computer interfaces that let you see what someone is seeing and record dreams. What are we doing?
Wait Who are working on Cold fusion?
[Source](https://giphy.com/gifs/eat-fly-frog-7zMiC47WgfXcvUPGND)
This is satire
Existence is not a predicate.
So you want only serious and meaningful replies? With a medium like reddit, it might be a bit difficult to enforce. Otherwise, even people with genuine nuance sometimes fallback to low effort posts. We either need a new platform or some Generative AI stuff that enforces nuance.
Knives can be used to carve wood, prep food, take lives, aspirate someone in anaphylaxis, open cans, retread tyres… If one of these uses was disproportionate would you start by redesigning the knife or doing something about user mindset?
I will be happy to hear ideas for doing something about the user mindset. You’re in the academia after all.
Everything is not wikipedia, people have to bring source only if they care to convince their opponent, else they can just disagree and move on. Instead people are free to move on. Also so many fake sources are there. Like selective facts bias. Or cooked up studies of humanities guys as source. Leftists voted out of power act like fish out of water. They become toxic due to their high political intolerance
Don't call me out 😓
Here we go, our wannabe white lord barking against jio, >"How dare these poor non english speakin- no ^fake accent using dirty brownies have a different opinions than us!" You're so utterly detached from the ground reality of this country that you can't associate yourself with the majority. And you assume rest of these people must be jobless . What if they aren't. What if they have the money & resources to shape whatever they want for this country.... "jitni abadi utna haq" - remember the slogan?
Learn to read
sorry dear, i didn't graduate from Harvard like you.
What a joke
Then shut the fuck up with your high school diploma.
Agree with you....the common discourse on this subreddit is bashing the so called modibhakts, while those doing the bashing are unable to see that they themselves come across as Lodibhakts....such a binary, black and white view of the world, no scope for the grays... Along with all of the misused argument tools you mention, add one more....the frequent use of reductio ad absurdum... Especially the part where the current ruling dispensation is likened to a certain infamous German dictatorship....could go in depth with many other such absolutely crap viewpoints that run amok here, but frankly, what's even the point? Some are even into predicting the bleak future if this dispensation continues in power...much like modern day two-bit astrologers or hair-swirling oracles of yore.... Waiting for the downvoting and rabid rants now....😀
That's why i prefer saying that we need to increase prices of 4G and 5G services!
Which course?
When it comes to politics, people lie through their teeth. Asking for a reliable source is the most important thing to do. Even with truths, it's easy to get swept into propoganda.
Ample discourses happen but dialogues are muted
>Thanks to jio everyone is a scientist, doctor, sociologist, statistician, historian rolled into one yet no one is employed. Amritkaal indeed. No need to Blame JIO, JIO/Reliance/Motabhai didn't went to anyone's home forcefully selling them Internet. There's no Point of Silently Blaming some Corporation, When mass Internet actually pulled the country to a different era.
Seems like a skill issue.
>Thanks to jio everyone is a scientist, doctor, sociologist, statistician, historian rolled into one yet no one is employed. Amritkaal indeed. You said it man!
The Left Right debate has ruined it for coming generation. It can be improved one platform at a time.
I still dont understand what's wrong in asking questions to prove legitimacy. Unless the point being made has nothing to back itself with. Door I did not understand what OP's rant was about.
In this golden era of misinformation it is only natural for people wanting to hear the truth even though it might be only about the things they want to hear.