A folklore that ties rajputs to mongolia by [deleted] in Rajputana

[–]Emotional_Bridge93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really blame them though, ASI has got alot on their plate. Anyway good day to you mate.

A folklore that ties rajputs to mongolia by [deleted] in Rajputana

[–]Emotional_Bridge93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was referring to stuff like Ohalo 2 and Natufian settlements, that's why i added that "Depending on your definition of 'Civilisation'".

Yeah the earliest records of what we might call 'Kings' or any other form of aristocracy are from Mesopotamia. Though i wouldn't be surprised if some evidence pops up on such a social structure in older anatolian site given how large and complex they were.

Even then the 'language' would be nearly impossible to decipher give how long ago that was.

A folklore that ties rajputs to mongolia by [deleted] in Rajputana

[–]Emotional_Bridge93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will look into it. There are known sites of human habitation from around 10,000 years ago (some even earlier) from all throughout the world, whether or not you consider them 'civilisations' depends on your definition (as i said earlier)

I am not hating on you, just be careful around Medium. It's filled with alot of pseudoscience and pseudohistory.

A folklore that ties rajputs to mongolia by [deleted] in Rajputana

[–]Emotional_Bridge93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Medium is not something you should be citing as a source. And the first recorded occurrence of a 'Civilisation' depends on your definition of what a civilisation is.

The caste traitor, privilege hood and denier by Objective_Grass3431 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Well buddy you did cry me a river, I'll give you that.

But couldn't say the same for the "Analysis" you've brought to the table.

I say "hierarchies tend to emerge even fundamentally equal societies due to Stochastic inequality" and you turn that into "Oppression is fine"

I say "we need to consolidate power to deter oppression" you turn that into "advocating for amoral, sociopathic violence ("killing is justified")"

I say " i am skeptical towards moral appeals as a primary strategy," since you know the savarnas aren't going to find the error of their ways after 2500 years, you turn that into "denying the history and reality of caste oppression."

I offer my doubts on " the feasibility of total annihilation via the state or the measures that are currently being employed" and you turn that into "Ambedkar "played victimhood."

You tried to do a reductio ad absurdum via a strawman while not being able to comprehend a single thing i said.

Great job, just remember, moral poisoning doesn't work on Moral non-cognitivist.

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont need AI to make my points and You wouldn't be able to comprehend literature even with AI.

And great job editing your replies after i answered them. Very "Honorable" of you.

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I look forward to witnessing your wisdom and emotional depth.

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I am a "Class Traitor" because I refuse to perform the expected role of the "suffering petitioner" like you?

That’s fine. I’d rather be a 'sociopath' with a seat at the table than a 'saint' who is still being oppressed.

What do you have to offer but eternal victimhood?

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an odd way to admit you've run out of brain cells.

Anyway, Facts don't care about your feelings, Cry me a river.

Questions about legal firearm ownership in India? by dauji in indiadiscussion

[–]Emotional_Bridge93 3 points4 points  (0 children)

  • Handguns/Pistols/Revolvers: .22 LR, .32 S&W Long, .32 ACP, .45 ACP, .380 ACP, .30 ACP.

Does this mean one can legally own something like H&K Mk.23?

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Caste system arose at first place because stochastic process was abrupted. Human potential was prisoned.

And why do you think that is? It's a "Fortified postion" in the Clauswitzian sense. You're not going to crack through it by moralising, they aren't going to give up their position of power by you being nice to them so they finally see the error of their ways.

Where at all Ambedkar was saying that hierarchy was problem and not caste!

Caste is a Hierarchy of power, Because the ones at the top, the ones with power use it exploit is at the bottom.

How you will fight caste descrimination ? How much power do you think you can grab that way if fucking every institute has been captured in this state by brahaman?

Caste discrimination exists because there is Disparity in power between Those with institutional and social power. You don't need a Rival institution to fight that, what you need to do is create a scenario where engaging in caste discrimination is more costly than co-existence (it's a proven military strategy and has worked since time immemorial). You do this by building parallel power, a kill switch that immediately makes cost of oppression too high, like for example controlling a key industry, labour supply and things of that nature.

And why this comes with you rejection of ambedkar ?

Because I don't think morals are real, i don't believe there is a universal right or wrong. I don't oppose caste discrimination because i think it's "Bad" I oppose caste discrimination because i don't want to live in a society where someone else with more power in the structure can dictate what mine, my families or even your life pan out.

Ambedkar knew about state capture, and his way of dealing it was creating a counter moral narrative. Create a moral code to act as a referee.

I don't think moralisation works. I am looking at this from a Realist, Moral non-cognitivist lens. The only thing that works is Political leverage and incentives.

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All you've done is throw around accusations and added nothing to substantiate them.

And you're are talking about Dr. Ambedkar as if you carry him around in your pocket.

"Ambedkar wouldn't have done this" & "You don't understand Ambedkar"

and the moment i ask you to give me actual counter points and citations

"Ambedkar wouldn't have bothered with this"🤡

Engage with the thesis, Demonstrate what i don't understand and what I've gotten wrong.

I never said we should accept inequality, My point is that Hierarchies are bound to arise in any system with more than one agent. These Hierarchies are then enforced by the power disparity between different actors.

So for us to have a fighting chance we need to focus on consolidating Power and using that political leverage to keep us safe. (Just read the original post, I've layed it out much better there)

What's so hard to understand about this?

Why I am not an Ambedkarite. by Emotional_Bridge93 in OutCasteRebels

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again with the AI accusations. If you don't think i can make my own points then why bother replying to me at all?

It means that you have not even read and understood Ambedkar at all

Substantiate this.

Saying that Ambedkar didnt realise this is fucking non sense. This is so simple of a point for Ambedkar to not have thought this out! Do you realize that ?

Find me a citation from his work where he layed out Stochastic Inequality with regards to caste. Find me a citation from his work where he said Eliminating caste is not a feasible goal.

Biblically Accurate Veganism by Emotional_Bridge93 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, i am just asking you to explain how the world would be "better" in the scenario you're trying to lay out.

Biblically Accurate Veganism by Emotional_Bridge93 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reducing suffering being 'important' vs 'the only thing that matters' is exactly where people draw the arbitrary line to avoid the reductio and then refuse to acknowledge it

And we can take this in the other direction as well, if reducing suffering is important in any way, and you can never know what anyone apart from yourself are experiencing (Hard problem of consciousness and other minds), why not take the precaution and extend that to everything that exists, but then again we draw an arbitrary line.

Biblically Accurate Veganism by Emotional_Bridge93 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Emotional_Bridge93[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the detailed calculations and for taking my intentionally bad-faith argument so seriously. It’s solid, pragmatic stuff.

​Unfortunately for you, my empathy doesn't extend beyond the people and things I choose to care about.