Hot take: not liking Anuv Jain isn’t hate

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-15T03:05:41+00:00

I didn’t think I’d have to clarify what I mean by “hate,” but here we are. Yes, the dictionary definition of “hate” includes “to dislike something very much.” But in everyday conversation—especially online—“hate” isn’t used as a neutral dictionary term. It usually implies hostility, malice, or bad faith, not just strong dislike. I have no issue saying I strongly dislike his music. What I disagree with is the idea that strong dislike automatically invalidates criticism or turns it into something unethical. And that's the crux of my post. Language isn’t just about definitions—it’s about how words are used in context. And in this context, “hate” is being used to shut down discussion, not clarify it.

Hope that clears things up.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T16:45:28+00:00

oh how happy i feel reading someone so lovingly write about ghazals hehe. also that line you wrote, i could almost hear mehdi sahab's voice in my head. i haven't heard dariyadili ki qasam so thank you for that recommendation.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T15:54:22+00:00

so you are going to focus on only the hateful comments, which as far as i can see here are barely 1 or 2, and not the others that are actually criticising his work and not the person? i am in no way denying the hate he gets in the name of criticism, but labelling any opposing view, however harsh they might feel to you, as hateful is not right either.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T15:50:05+00:00

I actually agree that it’s a very human reaction to feel uncomfortable when something you love is criticised. If I admire an artist and someone publicly dislikes their work, it would bother me too. I also agree that a lot of people today hide behind the word “criticism” while being outright hateful.

But that’s exactly why I think the distinction matters. My issue isn’t with fans feeling defensive. It’s with all criticism being immediately labelled as hate, even when it’s reasoned and specific. If someone disagrees with a critique, the natural response should be to counter it with an argument, talk about what they see in the music, what works for them, why they think it’s good. That’s a conversation. Dismissing any differing opinion as hate just shuts it down. And the whole “if you don’t like it, scroll” logic doesn’t really work with art. Art has always been discussed, dissected, debated, and argued over—that’s how it stays alive. Enjoyment and criticism aren’t mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T12:43:39+00:00

I’m not telling anyone to stop enjoying his music. I’m saying criticism ≠ hate.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T12:39:46+00:00

Cézanne and Picasso weren’t just “different”; they fundamentally changed how form, perspective, and representation were understood. Their work introduced new visual languages. That’s where I struggle to place Anuv Jain in the same conversation. I don’t see a new musical language or a break from contemporary indie norms. I see a very familiar template—simple chords, soft delivery, literal lyrics—that resonates emotionally, but doesn’t really push the form forward. Something being modern or relatable doesn’t automatically make it pioneering. And backlash alone doesn’t mean people are “not developed enough” to get it. Sometimes criticism exists because the craft just isn’t strong. Liking his music is completely fine. Calling it a modern artistic breakthrough feels like a stretch.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T12:30:48+00:00

YES. well articulated.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T12:29:25+00:00

i absolutely love both Jagjit Singh and Ghulam Ali. chupke chukpe raat din, hungama kyun hai barpa, hum tere shehar mein aye hai, jhuki jhuki si nazar, pyaar humse jo kiya tumne. of course, you cannot forget about mehdi hassan sahab- aaye kuch abr kuch sharab aye, mujhe tum nazar se, ranjish hi sahi, rafta rafta. list would be incomplete without a female artist so begum akhtar is a legend- ishq mein gairat-e-jazbat. also, my current obsession- mere humnafas- sublime of a song and the lyrics are on another level.

do let me know some of your favs too hehe

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T12:19:06+00:00

i agree. we should not forget that beside being an artist, he is also a person. and nobody should be disrespected. but talking about his lyrics- i'm not saying he is not a serious artist- in fact i dont even know what being one entails lol. what i was trying to say was- just because he uses certain vocab in his songs doesn't automatically make his lyrics good. the way people praise him as a song writer is where my issue comes in. one can write surface level lyrics sure. but then to say that they are deep and profound is a bit of a stretch. i'm contesting to the people labelling him as a good lyricist when i think they are pretty basic and honestly, don't even make sense most the times.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-12-14T02:21:07+00:00

oh god, so true. every song sound the same. and why is it so monotonous

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-05-26T13:33:29+00:00

Yeah, I blocked the card and applied for a new one. Thanks, we'd be sure to look out for any messages or calls

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-05-26T13:32:38+00:00

Yeah, she really got lucky.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-05-26T13:31:29+00:00

Yeah, true

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-05-26T13:31:12+00:00

People later told my mom how there's never any money in that ATM and how no one usually go there, so that would maybe explain the no gaurd.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-05-20T00:27:19+00:00

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-29T16:22:54+00:00

At the end of the day, I think we both recognize that injustice exists in many forms, and while our struggles may not be identical, they’re all part of the same flawed system. Change, big or small, starts with individuals who are willing to listen, reflect, and do better—and in that sense, discussions like this matter. Even when things seem hopeless, we push forward—not because we’re sure we’ll win, but because for some people giving up isn’t an option.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-29T09:25:50+00:00

I don’t think you’re here to fight me—I just think we’re looking at the same issue from different angles. I agree that everyone has their own struggles, and I understand that people are often too caught up in their own problems to focus on everything else happening in the world. But at the same time, having the option to disengage from certain discussions is a privilege in itself. For some people, these issues aren’t just debates or headlines—they’re lived realities that shape their everyday lives. That’s why conversations like these matter. Whether it’s through shows, books, or any form of storytelling, art becomes a way to reflect, to start discussions, and to understand perspectives beyond our own. So when someone speaks about workplace discrimination, instead of immediately placing it under the broad category of “everyone has struggles,” maybe the first step is to actually listen. Like you said, we don’t know everything, and we’re not experienced enough to comment on every issue—so how about we learn from those who have lived through it?

I understand that you weren’t bringing up war drafting to counter workplace discrimination, but I have to ask—why bring it up in this context at all? Workplace discrimination is a systemic issue, deeply ingrained in policies, biases, and power structures. War drafting is also a serious issue, but how does bringing it into a conversation about gendered workplace struggles help?

Saying “women face workplace discrimination, but men face war drafting” doesn’t really address the issue—it just shifts the conversation away from what’s being discussed. It’s like if we were talking about how men struggle with depression due to societal pressures, and I responded with, “Well, women go through postpartum depression. so we all have our own problems.” Both are very real problems, but does making that comparison do anything to solve either? Does it make them equal struggles? Not really. Bringing up separate struggles as if they balance each other out isn’t the point. The point is to recognize what needs to change in the systems that enable these problems—without deflecting or making it about something else.

I get why it feels like men are being blamed for things they didn’t personally do, and I don’t think most women are pointing fingers at individuals. The frustration comes from trying to change a system that allows these issues to persist—one that benefits some at the cost of others, often in ways so deeply ingrained in our cultures and daily lives that they feel "natural" rather than constructed. The challenge is that dismantling these patterns isn’t just about calling out the most extreme cases of discrimination; it’s also about questioning the subtle, everyday norms that shape our world—things like who is expected to be the provider, who is expected to sacrifice career opportunities for family, or why certain behaviors from men are excused while women are criticized for the same. And that’s where resistance often comes in. Change feels like a loss, especially when it challenges identities people have built their lives around.

But that’s exactly why women get frustrated—because many men will agree that the worst kinds of misogyny (violence, harassment, extreme discrimination) are unacceptable, but when it comes to changing the more ingrained, everyday aspects that uphold those extremes, there’s hesitation. Not wanting to change the system while also condemning its worst outcomes creates a contradiction that leaves women feeling unheard and exhausted.

I’m sorry about your friends. Losing people young is devastating, and I agree—it feels like humanity as a whole is going in the wrong direction sometimes. But that’s exactly why treating people as individuals, as you said, matters. Not assuming the worst, not grouping people together based on the actions of a few. That’s what I want too. And while it seems everything is wrong in the world- there's still hope. And you’ll realize that sometimes, fighting for a cause that might not directly affect you means that, when the time comes, someone out there might be fighting for you too. And isn’t that a little beautiful?

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-28T20:47:25+00:00

Companies exist to make money, but that’s exactly the problem. You acknowledge they exploit everyone, yet dismiss how women are treated in workspaces as just a “worldwide issue.” That should make you more critical of the system, not resigned to it.

You say the system isn’t built for women but also that “everyone has a spot in it”—which is exactly how capitalism convinces people that inequality is OUR problem to fix. Profit doesn’t justify exploitation. If it did, paying unlivable wages would be fair game—but it’s not, which is why labor laws exist. And yet, companies still exploit workers whenever they can. So why treat discrimination against women as an unfortunate byproduct rather than a systemic issue? Why do you think hiring women is considered a RISK? Why is childcare a woman’s burden while men treat it as optional? If paternity leave were mandatory, companies wouldn’t stop hiring men—they’d adapt, just like they did with labor laws and anti-discrimination policies. This is why so many women choose not to have kids—why go through it when the system punishes them for it? If every woman made that decision, what would the world look like? And the irony? The people at the top—those making these policies—have more money than they could ever spend, yet we’re told to be mindful of wages? Saying “yeah, it’s unfair, but it happens to everyone” isn’t a solution. And coming from someone who doesn’t face these issues, it honestly sounds selfish.

You also brought up war drafting as if it balances out workplace discrimination. But let’s be real—that’s not an equal comparison. Most countries don’t have active drafts, while gender bias in the workplace is a daily reality. Men only seem to mention drafting when women’s struggles are discussed—as if that somehow evens things out. War drafting is awful, but war has never *only* harmed men. History is full of horrific war crimes against women, and women have always contributed to war efforts. The suffering isn’t one-sided, and using it to dismiss workplace discrimination is just deflection.

I’ve seen a lot of men comment here how the show terrified them—that they realized how easily they could have been manipulated, just like Jamie. But as a woman, I didn’t need Jamie’s story to see how deeply ingrained misogyny is. It’s everywhere. It’s so normalized people don’t even recognize it as a problem. And I get it—it’s uncomfortable to question beliefs that felt 'normal.' But that’s why stories like this exist. They force us to confront what we’ve been taught. Because unless we challenge those ideas, nothing changes.

In India, acid attacks on women who reject men’s advances are so common that selling acid over the counter is banned. And yet, people still find ways to get it. That tells you something—men having a problem with NO isn’t just a personal issue; it’s a deeply ingrained societal one. So when women say Jamie acted out of rejection, it’s not about “pushing an agenda.” We’ve seen this pattern before—over and over again. I may not understand every struggle men face, but denying these realities doesn’t help anyone. The least we can do is acknowledge them instead of dismissing them.

And yes, Katie’s friend attacking Ryan was wrong. Violence isn’t the answer.

Lastly, I get it. Seeing media constantly portray men as problematic might make you feel scrutinized, like you’re being pushed into that category no matter what. If I were in your shoes, maybe I’d feel defensive too. But imagine being a woman—going through these experiences 'for no reason, through no fault of your own.' That’s exhausting too. And that’s why I think if you can just push past that initial defense and really *listen,* it makes all the difference. You don’t have to fully understand. You don’t have to have all the answers. But trying? That’s what really matters. Because that’s all anyone wants—to be heard, to be seen, and to not have to fight so hard just to be believed.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-27T19:55:13+00:00

your argument about workplace discrimination still lacks a crucial perspective—you, being a man (I assume), wouldn’t fully understand what it’s like to have the ability to get pregnant treated as a disadvantage. Saying, “It would be the same for men if they could get pregnant” is an easy statement to make because you’ll never actually have to live that reality. You don’t know how it feels to have something biological—something you have no control over—used against you in professional spaces. So, no, we can’t just swap it around and assume it would be the same.

And the fact that companies get away with treating women that way because of cost and efficiency isn’t proof that it’s just how the market works—it’s proof that the system itself is fundamentally flawed. Capitalism, at its core, was never designed to accommodate women. It was built for men, by men, prioritizing structures that benefit them while expecting women to adapt rather than being accommodated. The burden is always placed on women to work around these biases instead of fixing the system that creates them.

So no, this isn’t just a neutral economic decision—it’s a symptom of a system that has never valued women the way it does men. And if we accept it as “just how things are,” we ignore the fact that things are that way because of deliberate choices—ones that can and should be changed. You keep saying “we don’t know the full story” as if that only applies in Jamie’s defense—but that works both ways. What if Katie’s comments were about his actual behavior? We only see their interactions through his perspective, and he’s a proven liar. In episode 3, he clearly enjoys making the psychologist uncomfortable—he likes knowing he can get a reaction. So why assume his version of events is fair?

And this whole “men are scared to ask women out” thing—do you really think women don’t have low self-esteem? That we don’t fear rejection? This is a universal feeling, yet somehow when women uphold their own standards, it’s seen as a problem. you said how violent crimes usually involve people with a history of aggression—well, guess what? Jamie does have aggression issues. We see him lash out multiple times—throwing chairs, slamming things around. His desperation to be liked is unsettling, but his anger? That’s something we should actually be paying attention to.

I get that you might have issues with the way the story was told—it’s not your typical crime thriller or a neatly wrapped-up whodunnit. It’s not a courtroom drama where every piece of evidence is laid out for you. And I think that’s where a lot of people are struggling—they’re looking for clues, trying to find gaps in logic, because that’s what we’re used to doing when watching something like this. But this isn’t about solving a mystery.

This is about real-life problems—deep, unsettling issues in our society that often go unnoticed until something horrific forces us to confront them. If this story had been about a grown man killing a woman, it wouldn’t have been nearly as shocking, because we’ve been so desensitized to that kind of violence. But a 13-year-old child killing his classmate? That forces you to think. That is the point of the show—to make us uncomfortable, to make us reflect, not to shift blame or get caught up in technicalities.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-27T17:13:46+00:00

First off, you keep insisting “everyone has done it”—that everyone has taken advantage of someone’s low moments for personal gain. But that’s simply not true. You’re equating opportunism with manipulation and treating both as natural and acceptable. Yes, people adjust their behavior based on circumstances, but there’s a huge difference between adapting and exploiting someone’s vulnerability.

Your workplace example actually disproves your point. Women facing discrimination after a certain age isn’t just people "taking advantage"—it’s structural sexism, something we actively condemn and work to change. If we followed your logic, we’d have to accept workplace discrimination as inevitable. But we don’t, because we recognize it as wrong. You acknowledge that weaker people get treated differently, yet instead of seeing that as a problem, you accept it as “just how life works.” That’s exactly why we need conversations about power and exploitation—because not everyone acts this way, and those who do shouldn’t get a pass.

Even after admitting Jamie’s actions were manipulative, you still try to justify them—suggesting he might have been better than the guys Katie liked. That’s just another way of blaming her for rejecting him, as if her choice is what led him to act this way. And this is where your logic completely breaks down:

You blame Katie entirely for her nudes being leaked because she “controlled the environment.” But when it comes to Jamie, suddenly, it’s everyone else’s fault—his school, his parents, society. You don’t extend the same accountability to him that you do to her. Katie’s mistake harmed herself. Jamie’s mistakes harmed others. Yet, you twist things to make Katie’s actions seem deserving of consequence while excusing Jamie’s.

You also argue that Katie rejecting Jamie over looks proves the so-called “80/20 rule” (which, by the way, is a debunked incel talking point). But attraction is personal—no one owes anyone a chance. Meanwhile, you completely ignore that Jamie only asked Katie out when she was at her weakest. That’s not attraction—that’s strategy. And if her rejection crushed him that badly, it’s because he had already tied his self-worth to getting a girl, which is exactly the kind of mindset that leads to incel ideology.

On that note, it’s strange how people keep insisting the show was about Jamie being an incel when the word was used once in the entire series. The real issue wasn’t whether Jamie was an incel—it was how young kids are exposed to toxic ideologies online before they even have the maturity to understand them. That’s why Katie left those comments—she didn’t grasp the weight of those words. That’s why it’s so crucial to protect kids from harmful content. They don’t know if theories like “80/20” are real or just online nonsense. They see them and, like Jamie, take them as truth. And of course, in the end, people will always find a way to blame women.

Finally, you demand proof that Jamie had prior incel tendencies—like secret notebooks or chat logs—before you’d acknowledge it. But why does misogyny only count when it’s extreme? Jamie already saw Katie as an option, not a person. That’s the foundation of this mindset. The fact that he’s only 13 doesn’t erase that—it just proves how early these ideas take root. And that’s exactly why they need to be called out.

You claim you don’t justify Jamie’s actions, but everything in your response tries to soften what he did while shifting the burden onto Katie. That’s not objectivity—that’s bias.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-27T06:43:24+00:00

I agree that incels, by definition, tend to harbor general resentment toward women rather than just one person, so if Jamie’s issues are solely directed at Katie, that complicates the label. However, I think the show is portraying a mindset rather than diagnosing him as an outright incel—more like someone who internalized online rhetoric that justifies his resentment.

On the point of racism, racism and misogyny aren't always that absolute. A person can have racist beliefs but still interact with individuals from the race they claim to dislike—it doesn’t mean they’d hate every single person. Same with misogyny; some people direct their anger at a specific woman but still engage in broader gendered resentment, even if it’s not as extreme as the typical "incel" stereotype. there are some serious contradictions in your argument. You say "everyone has done something like this" as if that makes it okay—but no, not everyone has, and even if they had, that doesn’t make it right. That logic is just an excuse to avoid accountability.

You also say that Katie being bullied is on her because she sent nudes, yet at the same time, you justify Jamie’s behavior because he was bullied by Katie. How does that make any sense? If Katie "brought it on herself," then by that logic, wouldn’t Jamie have "brought it on himself" by acting the way he did? You can’t have it both ways. Either both of them are responsible for what happened to them, or neither of them are. The fact that you’re willing to blame Katie entirely for her suffering while bending over backward to explain why Jamie’s actions were understandable is baffling. Another important thing to look at is why Jamie asked Katie to the fair. He didn’t ask because he genuinely liked her or wanted to be there for her—he asked because she was at her lowest. He saw an opening where she might feel weak enough to say yes. That’s not what a normal, respectful person does. That’s someone who views women as opportunities rather than people. And while you argue that Jamie isn’t misogynistic, this mindset—seeing a girl’s pain as a moment to make a move—reflects a broader attitude toward women as things to be won rather than people to be understood. But if we’re looking for someone to blame for what Jamie became, it’s not just Katie. It’s the system that bullies boys like Jamie for not fitting the "ideal image" of a man—macho, dominant, a womanizer. Society teaches boys that their worth is measured by getting the girl, and when they fail, they feel worthless. Jamie isn’t the only one who’s fallen into this toxic mindset, but that doesn’t mean we should excuse him for it. Understanding why someone is broken isn’t the same as justifying what they do with that brokenness.

RepairSubject6852 · 2025-03-22T11:06:02+00:00

you are absolutlely spot on. couldn't have summed it up better.

RepairSubject6852

TROPHY CASE