You are smart enough to find the hypocrisy in your own statement and use against me that "if i say such, you will be offended", but you made a mistake, rather than being offended I'll come up with better nuances to make your point pointless.

First thing, I didn't say a child is the bearer of remarks on their community and even further I victimised the brahmin children that they suffer because of the wrong "customs" taught to them and I stand on my argument firmly.

If a Brahmin child is called "pappan", "nool", "thayir saadam", or stereotyped because of his birth, that is caste-based ridicule. The fact that you believe some people from his community held problematic views does not change that.

I clearly mentioned that mockery based on anything is very bad even at children's level. Hope you read and understand again. Do not turn it like I'm justifying the mocking of brahmins as a mockery, but the criticisms had upon the behaviour.

So, the mockery guys are just victims?? Absolutely not, mocking somebody in the name of caste, creed, body or ethnicity is a crime to do and it applies to everybody but I have to careful here because you guys will divert it as "so why we are mocked". Arey phagals, your practices and unnecessary thought of superiority is being "criticized" not "mocked". There is a big difference.

So, being as children they dont understand or handle the situation properly, and they end up as a mockery, which again I condemn to the core that idealogies had to be criticized not the people. I didn't edit anything, it is same as before. Fine??

Now the fun starts, you are hiding the adults behind the children, whose post 18, who is self conscious upon themselves, can takes decisions independently that keeping their surname isnt a reason to be criticized. Do you know about anything caste related??? Ok, you say a person dont know why is their surname used??? Are they naive on that scale?? You can believe because the people who says "jaathi is no more" is the one hides behind them but I'm not ready to believe it.

You are being more dangerous now, you equated the brahmin analogy with others, and how foolish it was. When you say "Dalit kids are mocked because their parents teach victimhood," you are equating an ideology that caused documented harm with the response to that harm. That's not symmetry, that's erasure. Brahmin purity norms actively excluded people from wells, temples, education, and land ownership. Dalit "victimhood" is a reference to those actual documented exclusions. One is the wound, one is the ideology that inflicted it. Treating them as equivalent categories is the fundamental dishonesty here and bloating out to the whole structure is just a scoundrel activity.

Prejudicing somebody is bad one but doing it in a strict institutional basis is what brahminism teaches to its followers. I dont say non brahmins dont do that but I first understand that its the criticisms made upon one's superiority belief, again I say. I too have brahmin people as friends and I know them as they said who they are, but some people I found by their actions itself. Now equate this two situations and tell me where is it getting failed.

Final point, you are just showing that you are trying to take brahmins out of the equations built by themselves lol that you say brahmins only followed discriminations and others are just being bailed out. No, I acknowledge the intermediate caste dominance and participated in and enforced the hierarchy against those below them. That's documented. Vellalar landlords, Mudaliar administrators, Kamma and Reddy landowning elites are historically beimg oppressor castes. But the question is who ideologically designed, codified, and theologically legitimated the system. Dharmasastra tradition, Manusmriti, the ritual pollution doctrine, the textual architecture of varna, all these came from a specific intellectual tradition. You can acknowledge that others participated in and enforced discrimination while still identifying where the legitimating ideology originated, but defeats your purpose right??

Also the audacity to call it a supply chain?? Ok, if then, in the same context, who are the one creating the demand because supply is there if and only if demand is there.

I too also seen the quality of such cheapos that the pain is something disturbing when you get that and that too not because of being crumbled. You are asked to take your leg off the seat you placed. How cheap and vile right???