website statistics
Jump to content

[OFF TOPIC] Politics Thread


Wanderer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Absolutely terrific article about masculinity in the United States. I’ve never felt more understood quite frankly. I would have loved to have been interviewed for those piece. There’s so much to talk about in here. It’s a very long article, but highly recommend reading it if you get the chance. If anyone does end up reading it I’d love to talk about it. Here’s a link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/the-miseducation-of-the-american-boy/603046/?utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=2019-12-16T14%3A58%3A53
 

@Rdbc you would probably relate to this as well I imagine. Maybe @bmo as well.

“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. Sport can create hope where once there was only despair” - Nelson Mandela

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

Simple thumb rule: If you don't want police to use force to crush protests, don't fucking burn buses or pelt stones on the police. 

 

P.S. Still waiting for your response to my previous queries. So, repeating them here: 1) What is the issues you have with CAB and 2) What is the connection of Slumdog Millionaire with all this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dolby

I have a couple of questions regarding CAB.

 

1. Are Ahmadiyya-muslims included under CAB?

2. In case they are not included under CAB, could you explain me the reason why?

 

UN has openly criticized Pakistan for its persecution of Ahmadiyya-muslims:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14658&

 

I'm aware you have written this about persecuted Muslims:

"Persecuted Muslims from these three countries are still free to apply for refugee/citizenship of India. Those applications will be dealt with according to the existing laws. Similarly, even Hindus from around the world are not covered under this law". 

https://totallympics.com/index.php?/topic/822-off-topic-politics-thread/&do=findComment&comment=262812

 

I know my post can seem very critical, but in reality it stem from my lack of knowledge of India. I don't know much about Indian politics or India as a society, so I'm curious to know more about it from an Indian's point of view. 

Edited by Wumo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wumo said:

@Dolby

I have a couple of questions regarding CAB.

 

1. Are Ahmadiyya-muslims included under CAB?

2. In case they are not included under CAB, could you explain me the reason why?

 

UN has openly criticized Pakistan for its persecution of Ahmadiyya-muslims:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14658&

 

I'm aware you have written this about persecuted Muslims:

"Persecuted Muslims from these three countries are still free to apply for refugee/citizenship of India. Those applications will be dealt with according to the existing laws. Similarly, even Hindus from around the world are not covered under this law". 

https://totallympics.com/index.php?/topic/822-off-topic-politics-thread/&do=findComment&comment=262812

 

I know my post can seem very critical, but in reality it stem from my lack of knowledge of India. I don't know much about Indian politics or India as a society, so I'm curious to know more about it from an Indian's point of view. 

No, Ahmadiyas/Qadianis are not included in the CAB. Reason being India considers Ahmadiyas as Muslims. If we have to include them as a class in this bill we have to first recognise them as non-Muslims. (In India, we don't have a common Civil Code. Personal Laws are defined according to religion and declassifying them as Muslims would have major legal issues for them.) 

 

I am happy to answer any queries that you or anyone else has on CAB. I can't expect you to have full knowledge about these issues. International media has been spreading a lot of misinformation about CAB, so it is expected that people would have a lot of questions about it. Can't even blame international media fully as our own media is complicit in misinformation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dolby said:

No, Ahmadiyas/Qadianis are not included in the CAB. Reason being India considers Ahmadiyas as Muslims. If we have to include them as a class in this bill we have to first recognise them as non-Muslims. (In India, we don't have a common Civil Code. Personal Laws are defined according to religion and declassifying them as Muslims would have major legal issues for them.) 

 

I am happy to answer any queries that you or anyone else has on CAB. I can't expect you to have full knowledge about these issues. International media has been spreading a lot of misinformation about CAB, so it is expected that people would have a lot of questions about it. Can't even blame international media fully as our own media is complicit in misinformation. 

 

What I interpret from reading the media's criticism on this bill is that it doesn't include a group like the Ahmadiyas in it. As you write, India and almost all of the world recognise them as Muslims, and I do understand the bill doesn't include Muslims, but I think the Indian government and parliament could have been spared some of the criticism if they had also included persecuted groups of muslims in/from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan in CAB.

 

In short, I think the criticism from Western media is that the bill should have included all persecuted religious groups in/from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, instead of all, but Muslim groups.  

Edited by Wumo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wumo said:

What I interpret from reading the media's criticism on this bill is that it doesn't include a group like the Ahmadiyas in it. As you write, India and almost all of the world recognise them as Muslims, and I do understand the bill doesn't include Muslims, but I think the Indian government and parliament could have been spared some of the criticism if they had also included persecuted groups of muslims in/from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan in CAB.

 

In short, I think the criticism from Western media is that the bill should have included all persecuted religious groups in/from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, instead of all, but Muslim groups.  

The bill doesn't include Jews as well. The bill doesn't include atheists as well. The bill doesn't include Bahai as well. The bill doesn't include Kalash religion as well. 

 

As I said earlier, these ad-hoc arrangements have been made by Indian government as and when situation arises. Previously, when large number of Bangladeshis arrived at time of their independence struggle, we granted citizenship to large number of Bangladeshis Muslims as well. Even in this bill, it is not a continuous amnesty but there is a cut-off date of 31 December 2014. So, this Bill is merely in response to a problem and not a template for future. Even now, noted Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, who is atheist and a vociferous critic of current government, has been given long-term visa on priority basis. So, if in future if we encounter a situation where Ahmadiyas or atheists or some other group is seeking refuge in India, we will give them citizenship as well. 

 

To give an example, if Denmark proposes a bill that gives citizenship to Yezidi refugees from Iraq and Syria, would we laud it or say the move is wrong because it doesn't give same rights to the other poor people fleeing ISIS? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dolby said:

The bill doesn't include Jews as well. The bill doesn't include atheists as well. The bill doesn't include Bahai as well. The bill doesn't include Kalash religion as well. 

 

As I said earlier, these ad-hoc arrangements have been made by Indian government as and when situation arises. Previously, when large number of Bangladeshis arrived at time of their independence struggle, we granted citizenship to large number of Bangladeshis Muslims as well. Even in this bill, it is not a continuous amnesty but there is a cut-off date of 31 December 2014. So, this Bill is merely in response to a problem and not a template for future. Even now, noted Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, who is atheist and a vociferous critic of current government, has been given long-term visa on priority basis. So, if in future if we encounter a situation where Ahmadiyas or atheists or some other group is seeking refuge in India, we will give them citizenship as well. 

 

To give an example, if Denmark proposes a bill that gives citizenship to Yezidi refugees from Iraq and Syria, would we laud it or say the move is wrong because it doesn't give same rights to the other poor people fleeing ISIS? 

This I didn't know. I appreciate this information.

 

To answer your question. I don't think Denmark in it's current situation would give citizenship to any groups outside the country, but I do so the point in your argument. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to come with your opinion on this discussion. Your posts have been very helpful to provide me with a nuanced view on the discussion of this bill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

@Rdbc you would probably relate to this as well I imagine

 

Wow very interesting read, I guess after reading this I grew up pretty lucky having a good group of guy friends who didn't care I was gay and living in a place where "toxic masculinity" was to that extent. 

I do think though guys at least where I'm from are getting better about opening up about feelings I know plenty of guys who openly talk about going to therapy, dealing with depression, etc. Hopefully one day everyone can just be themselves without caring about what others think, I believe thats what it all boils down to. :yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dolby said:

Simple thumb rule: If you don't want police to use force to crush protests, don't fucking burn buses or pelt stones on the police. 

 

P.S. Still waiting for your response to my previous queries. So, repeating them here: 1) What is the issues you have with CAB and 2) What is the connection of Slumdog Millionaire with all this. 

I’m going to assume CAB is the name of citizenship law? My biggest problem is that it seems like a step in the wrong direction towards peace in the area. Hindi nationalism has been on rise for the last few years, and this law seems fueled by it.

 

Slumdog Millionaire is how most Americans learned of Muslim mistreatment by Hindus.

“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. Sport can create hope where once there was only despair” - Nelson Mandela

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Latest Posts around Totallympics

    • Back in action tomorrow!  Winterberg,      IBSF Bobsleigh & Skeleton - YouTube
    • Thursday January 2nd, 2025   Knockout Round Day 1 Schedule     Relegation Game Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5)   (CET 17:00) Germany vs Kazakhstan Period-by-Period: January 2nd 2025, h. 11:00, Canadian Tire Centre, Ottawa     Quarterfinals Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5)   (CET 18:00) Sweden vs Latvia Period-by-Period: January 2nd 2025, h. 12:00, TD Place, Ottawa   (CET 20:30) United States vs Switzerland Period-by-Period: January 2nd 2025, h. 14:30, Canadian Tire Centre, Ottawa   (CET 23:00) Finland vs Slovakia Period-by-Period: January 2nd 2025, h. 17:00, TD Place, Ottawa   (CET 01:30 - 03.01.2025) Czechia vs Canada Period-by-Period: January 2nd 2025, h. 19:30, Canadian Tire Centre, Ottawa
    • Amundsen sick and Will not continue the tour
    • They've been recognised by the IOC since 1995.
    • It’s also interesting, and I only noticed it a few minutes ago, that World Netball has made it on to the list of International Sports Federations Recognised by the International Olympic Committee.   That’s an important and essential step if you want your sport to be considered for inclusion at the Olympic Games. It means the IOC is happy with things like your governance amd development of the sport.   It may or not be at 2032, but I’ve gotta say Netball are on the road to play a future Olympic Games. 
    • Jan Zachara (96) The oldest living Slovak olympic champion. Helsinki 52 Boxing.   RIP  
    • It was more than just “draw a circle on a map”.     They had to put a detailed submission in to the Olympic Programme Commission and then have meetings with them to put the case forward for inclusion.   World Lacrosse are also on the list of IOC-recognised international sporting federations, just like Squash and Flag Football which were also added to the LA2028 Olympic Games, along with Baseball/Softball.  They all put detailed submissions in.   Here is the link: International Sporting Federations Recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).   So why is Rugby League not on that list?     Why is Rugby League not even recognised by the IOC?   It’s not going to be gifted to them.   Rugby League has got a lot of hard work to even be recognised because they are not even listed as an IOC-recognised international sporting federation.     If you’re not on that list, you don’t get to have your sport play at the Olympic Games   For info, the international governing body for rugby league is the International Rugby League.    Has the International Rugby League even contacted the IOC and/or put together a submission to have the sport included at the Olympics?   I don’t know if they have or not.     
    • I wouldn't say there's no chance at all but if World Netball had better leadership they'd be in a much better position than they currently are.
    • Men have only been included in the FAST5 Netball World Series since 2022 and only because they're desperate to get into the Olympics so they've belatedly started building the men's international game.   Not so long ago in 2018 the World Netball outrageously declared that international netball will remain female only bucking the trend of all the other sports federations moving towards gender equality.   Imagine if they hadn't spent decades sabotaging the growth of the men's game in order to keep it "female only"? They'd have been in a much better position to bid for inclusion in the Olympics at least for 2032.
×
×
  • Create New...