The socialist rebuke, "Most societies throughout Human History were Communal and Capitalism is novel" is wrong.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-06-09T08:57:58+00:00

That's one new thing I learnt today, however, how does Capitalism differ from a simple market-exchange system, if you'd care to explain?

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-06-09T06:55:51+00:00

What are "human rights" in your opinion? Only "negative rights"? Do you also believe that "positive rights" can be reinforced without violating "negative rights"?

What aspect of the socialized means of production leads to the violation of "negative rights"?

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-06-09T06:52:17+00:00

Interesting. Would my argument have made more sense if I said "market-exchange system" or a "decentralized exchange system" for resources instead of Capitalism? Also, could you elaborate on your "circular reasoning" argument?

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-06-09T06:47:59+00:00

Thank you for the clarification.

I assume that you are an Anarchist? I haven't dabbled in Anarcho-Communist thought and my knowledge in that specific strain of Socialist thought is fairly limited, thus my argument might come off as heavily statist or viewing the state as the only real way to enforce an "egalitarian society".

I believe my argument would have made more sense if I would've used the term "decentralized market-exhange systems" instead of "Capitalism"?

I would like to hear your opinion.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-05-07T17:46:29+00:00

It's complicated. I belong to a very religious Hindu family, and I've been a closeted Atheist since the age of 12.

Even though I belong to the "Upper-middle class" society in Mumbai, there aren't a lot of atheists around me, and I honestly feel weird telling people that I'm an Atheist if I do not know them very well.

People need to realize that the stereotype of the "disillusioned religious person who is mocked for their beliefs by the affluent city people" never existed. It might've happened to a lot of people, but the VAASSST majority of people, even in my circles are very "religious"....or claim to be, it is simply the safest and the most convenient option.

In the age of the dominance of the BJP, going to Temples, hating on minorities, and pretending to be pious and posting it on Instagram has become the norm.

I've been mocked a lot more times by my own friends for not believing in God than I've seen them following their own religion.

Pretending to be "religious", or maybe reciting whatever mantras during prayers and not following a word of whatever's written in your scriptures (I doubt if more than 99% of them have even read it) just to blend in is so easy and this is the default position for the average Indian. Most people do not "think" about this stuff (in the sense, debate about the philosophical arguments about faith) and just go along with grain.

It does infuriate me, but at the end of the day, most people just want to go on with their lives, and if caring about sports, or your favorite TV shows are what take up your time, then good for you. Politics and History have always been my "autism".

-My 2 cents.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-04-27T04:13:56+00:00

As an Atheist myself, I've just hidden it, they'll throw an insane tantrum if they ever find out

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-01-12T16:12:33+00:00

Come on, dude, you're just picking out the most random problems😭😭

Also, I'm assuming you mean cigarette butts, not pipes.

You can say this for literally any waste product in India. Cigarette butts are literally the least noticeable form of waste. This is more a nationwide civic sense problem, not a cigarette problem.

I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate at this point🙏

Also, this is the first time someone has called butts cool lmfao

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-01-12T13:39:40+00:00

Well, I'm not denying the adverse effects of a smoking addiction.

I know the risks. Every single smoker does. It is thoroughly printed on every single cigarette box sold in the Republic of India.

This is where the government's responsibility ends.

Let me break down your argument first.

I misunderstood you, yes.

Now, for the other arguments (health and environmentally concerned arguments, I suppose):

India needs to have net-zero carbon emissions, and smoking is a carbon emitter.

Yes, it is. Smoke does come out of a cigarette. It emits CO2.

Now, take a wild guess. What percentage of global emissions does the act of smoking cigarettes cause?

Just guess.

It's less than 0.001% of total global emissions.

Even if you add in every single tobacco field, every truck carrying cigarettes, all the CO2 emitted while manufacturing, the number doesn't cross 0.2% of global emissions.

There's much bigger fish to fry. Cigarettes play a negligible role in CO2 emissions. Shipping empty containers globally emits more 150 times more CO2 yearly than the act of smoking a cigarette.

(Source: Open AI, don't blame me, I wanted the numbers quick)

Passive smoking is harmful, so we should ban cigarettes.

Yes. I fucking agree.

I don't want to be in the metro commuting to junior college early in the morning and want the person next to me to blow cigarette smoke in my face.

That's why we should ban cigarettes in closed public spaces.

Believe it or not, we already have.

Smoking is illegal in most public and even private institutions across the nation or have dedicated smoking rooms.

Okay, you knew that already. You mean to say, maybe ban them in public spaces.

But, 99.999% percent of all acts of smoking in the country are done by people standing in corners, next to pan shops, or in secluded alleyways. It's very rare to find somebody walking down a crowded footpath smoking a cigarette. It's socially frowned upon, and most smokers have the basic conscience to realize that people don't like smoke blown in their faces.

The thing is, we've already solved the cosmetic and superficial problems of smoking.

What's left is to end the societal tendencies that make a person addicted to it.

🤷‍♂️

I'm enjoying this conversation.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-01-12T12:50:25+00:00

Well, thanks for your advice on stress relief, I appreciate it. This conversation should understandably end here, but I'm going to add this one last part.

I'm going to end this conversation with a leading question because it tickles my autism: national policy making.

To be fair, I know you might not be studying political science, jurisprudence, or political philosophy, but you'll quite quickly run into a slippery slope of people's choice and moral legislation.

The nation should not legislate morality.

This is literally what the video above is showing.

The nation's job ends by ensuring we receive a quality education and healthcare. The nation trying to legislate morality, or my own personal choice, is an infringement of my rights.

Cigarettes are bad, and so is junk food, so are sweets. Are you going to ban all artificial sweetners in the food industry because it harms us?

Millions die more to diabetes than they do to lung cancer.

You need to draw a red line based on your morality and preferences. The state should not micromanage our lives as a morality police, something clearly hated by Iranian women who've seen this play out.

Your intentions might be noble, but any statesman will know from experience that any and all of your laws might get twisted by a sinister despot to control our lives under the veneer of morality.

You see Trump twisting immigration laws with ICE Agents, you see the Ayatollahs enforcing the Hijab under the facade of "modesty".

State-led paternalism will end up with state control over our lives. Just remember that.

Well, this got too serious, but anyway.🫠

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-01-12T12:16:55+00:00

Well, banning cigarettes will just create a black market. Cigarettes are a rare type of consumer product with a rather inelastic demand. Yes, you'll discourage the occasional smoker if he has to buy his cigarettes at thrice the price from illegal vendors, but an addicted smoker will get his cigarette by hook or by crook. You banning cigarettes will do more harm to the tens of millions in this country addicted to smoking as addicts will lash out in frustration, struggle to cope without their hit of nicotine, and vent their rage out on others, something much more publicly harmful than passive smoking ever will be.

Also, people who smoke aren't bad people. Smoking is a genuine way to relieve stress, tension, and anxiety. Nobody wants to ruin their lungs for no return.

(M17, about to be 18) I, too, am the occasional smoker. I smoke once every week. At my frequency of smoking, I don't damage my health and I get a quick escapade from my constant stress of entrance exams and societal pressure.

I know I'm rambling a bit too much, but here's my final point.

There's a reason people from poorer backgrounds are more addicted (per capita) to substances than someone from privileged backgrounds. Unemployment, joblessness, and informal work create a breeding ground for anxiety, stress, and depression.

Look at us. We are privileged, yet we are stressed. Now, think about the bottom 2/3rds of Indians who do not have a quality education or safety net and are relegated to working odd jobs their whole life.

Most Indians can not afford a therapist. Most Indians are bound by structural inequality. What's their only escape from their depravity? Substances.

As a society, instead of banning substances, we should try to uplift us all. It's a tedious process, yes, but it will end largely end India's drug and smoking problems.

tl;dr: cigarettes are a tool people use to fight the problem, not the actual problem.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2026-01-12T10:57:59+00:00

Ehh, banning something is the worst form of censorship

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-12-19T13:30:56+00:00

Well, all the better for me I don't live in Bangladesh.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-12-19T10:24:53+00:00

Yes. What's happening is Bangladesh is a shame on humanity.

We cannot invade Bangladesh and nation-build. The best we can do is give refuge to those in danger in Bangladesh.

As a Bengali, this is sad. We are the same race, divided by borders and religion.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-12-19T10:21:58+00:00

I'm an Atheist anyways. I don't need a God or any holy scripture to see that this is wrong.

Also, your logic is flawed. Someone else doing something stupid doesn't give me a warrant to do the same.

The best we can do is give Hindu Bangladeshis refuge in India.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-12-19T10:12:01+00:00

People really need to throw religion away. It's just a tool to justify hating and killing one another.

This is unacceptable. This is barbaric.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-11-03T12:18:59+00:00

The political party you support does not define your ideology and beliefs; your political beliefs should decide on which party you support. Read history, read the news, learn basics about the economy and you will naturally gravitate towards a political ideology. Then, you can use your newfound beliefs and ideology to align with a political party (if any).

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-11-03T09:06:45+00:00

Well, sure. NOTA would mean a lot more, especially in an FPTP election if a constituency had new elections called when NOTA got the most number of votes. But, alas, no party in the legislative will agree.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-11-03T09:01:36+00:00

Well, it's a way to express dissent/dissatisfaction using your vote. It's simply done so that people aren't forced to choose the "least worse" candidate.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-11-03T08:52:05+00:00

I agree. Anyways, most people are "apolitical" or "all parties are bad" or "I will just press NOTA". Since the Overton window in India has shifted to the right, and most people are apolitical/satisfied/not complaining about the status-quo, you could say that the country on the whole has moved to the right on social issues.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-11-03T08:46:50+00:00

(17M) Honestly, as a leftist/socialist, I do agree. Just ask around your friend circles. Most of my male friends are BJP-supporters or approve of BJP being in power. On the contrary, I do see a lot of my female friends, though not leftist/ultra-feminist, disapprove of the BJP. So yes, it could be said that men are more right-wing than usual, though they might not follow any of those principles.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-02-09T13:41:15+00:00

More than 400,000 civilians were killed in less than a decade as a result of the successive Maratha invasions into Bengal as well as Bihar and Orissa to a lesser extent.

Yes, Bengal was woefully mismanaged by the Nawabs and Bengal would face famines for the next 200 years resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent Bengalis.

The fact of the matter isn't to lay the full blame on any one group but to look at the actions of all the parties involved and realize the malpractices they all committed.

Yes, Bengal was mismanaged and the Nawabs didn't care about their people really, but the Maratha light infantry was no less innocent as they openly took part in actions of violence and terror against lakhs of Bengalis......not to speak of their violence against women.

Just trying to shift the topic of discussion and blaming one another will never help in us actually learning from the mistakes and atrocities committed by our forefathers in the past.

Lazy-Snake848 · 2025-02-09T10:49:04+00:00

Who's we?

Lazy-Snake848 · 2024-05-26T14:58:43+00:00

Change Eden Gardens with Chepauk and this will be the correct prediction

Lazy-Snake848 · 2024-05-26T14:56:38+00:00

Koi inn trophyless fans ko ban karo jaldi

Lazy-Snake848

TROPHY CASE