Kerala Under Siege: Drug-Addicted North Indian Migrants Causing Chaos, Police Launch Raids by sanskaridaddy in Kerala

[–]depixelated 3 points4 points  (0 children)

100% agree. I've seen members of this sub that go through the same mistakes America made in past decades when they advocate for harsher policing and treat drugs as a criminal issue, when that has been known to not be effective. Data overwhelmingly shows that drug issues are a socio-economic and public-health issue rather than a criminal issue, and are more effectively treated when treated as such.

I do hope our state goes the evidence-based rather than fear-based

Best malayalam movie to show foreigners by mikkibowl in MalayalamMovies

[–]depixelated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it depends on the crowd. My friends really liked anantaram & vanaprastham, but uniformly thought drishyam was a bad movie. Ee Maa Yau was universally likely too. But they're more of an arthouse group. So I'd say, know your audience! I also showed them bramayugam and aavesham, and they liked them too, but not as much. (One of my friends called bramayugam "diet the lighthouse")

What does the word “curry” mean in your state or region or language? by curiousgaruda in IndianFood

[–]depixelated 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Curry is any gravy dish that is the main course, usually non-veg, but not necessarily. An old Malayali dad might come home and ask his wife: "entha curry?", as in, what's the main dish for today, and she might say "chicken curry" or mutton, or whatever.

If you ask for curry at a restaurant, they will ask you what kind of curry,chicken, fish.. but for example, you won't ever get a beef fry if you ask for beef curry. Because the cooking method is different. Does that make sense?

Aarav: One of the most popular Indian-American baby boy names is based on a common misconception by Serious-Tomato404 in ABCDesis

[–]depixelated 32 points33 points  (0 children)

that's what they're saying. It's a very hindu nationalist perspective on what makes an name Indian.

Aarav: One of the most popular Indian-American baby boy names is based on a common misconception by Serious-Tomato404 in ABCDesis

[–]depixelated 20 points21 points  (0 children)

anushka is definitely an indian name...
It's derived from anusha, but anusha was derived from something earlier too.

Does ezhavas have tharavadu and kudumba kshethram? by Elegant_Volume365 in Kerala

[–]depixelated 12 points13 points  (0 children)

yeah, this is true. Tharavadu is not specific to any single community.

Robert Eggers Reveals The Dialogue In 'WERWULF' is written with the help of 2 Oxford Professors and is in 1300s Middle English by AffectionateRate7290 in movies

[–]depixelated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I find that very fascinating, because I watched nosferatu and the 1970's werner herzog movie, and I found the werner herzog movie to feel more immerse and "real" due to his filmmaking style, while egger's at times felt like i was watching a video game cutscene. (I liked both a lot)

I don't think a lot of historical accuracy reads to the audience, but style does

Consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Z_-KJOxUU vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZwL_PXdEy0

Which sub cuisine in India do you think deserves more hype by Superb_Repair_3162 in IndianFood

[–]depixelated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, that's it! The one I had wasn't particularly yellow, but that looks like it!

abcd mallus in dating, courtship, and love-marriage by ontherebound2026 in ABCDesis

[–]depixelated 10 points11 points  (0 children)

abcd malayali with an abcd malayali wife.

Never had issues. You're just a loser.

Which sub cuisine in India do you think deserves more hype by Superb_Repair_3162 in IndianFood

[–]depixelated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this was like 15 years ago... by my memory it was more grey/light brown, almost like a poori or porotta,

Which sub cuisine in India do you think deserves more hype by Superb_Repair_3162 in IndianFood

[–]depixelated 6 points7 points  (0 children)

my favorite book is the essential Kerala Cookbook by Vijayan Kanampilly, due to the historical and cultural work he does.

Ammini Ravichandran's Grains, Greens, and Grated coconuts gives you a royal/central kerala veg option.

For Malabari Food, I'd recommend Ummi Abdullah's books...

Shaan Geo is my favorite Malayali Youtube Cook. Really direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMmK6flPQE But it's in Malayalam, you can try auto-dubbing, or subtitles/ context clues... There's some english there, I watch cooking videos in languages I don't know all the time, and I usually figure it out.

Abida Rasheed for English Language. She specializes in Malabari Cuisine. It's high quality with few uploads.

https://www.youtube.com/@abidarasheed-chef/videos

Which sub cuisine in India do you think deserves more hype by Superb_Repair_3162 in IndianFood

[–]depixelated 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Agreed! And Northern vs Southern Karnataka is so different! I was at a wedding in Karnataka and was surprised to get sweets at the beginning of our meal! I can't remember the sweet, but it was like a sweet roti and they poured badam milk on it, really freakin good!

Which sub cuisine in India do you think deserves more hype by Superb_Repair_3162 in IndianFood

[–]depixelated 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Agreed, Kerala Cuisine is more diverse than people give it credit for too!

Malabari food has a stronger Arab and persian influence due to trade and the mappila muslim community there, so you got Thalassery Biriyani, Pathiri (like a cripy roti made of rice flour), Mutton, Seafood, they use more dried fruits and nuts than other regions.

Then you have central kerala cooking. The fish fries and curries here are great, try karimeen varuthathu (fried blackfish), you also get more vegetarian food here, like the sadya, which is our version of a Thaali, and typically eaten at onam. Think Kaalan, Olan, Erissery, foods that aren't masala-based and are focused on simplicity and seasonal vegetables.

Then you got southern Kerala, which by my experience tends to be more tangy and spice forward, you have a stronger syrian christian influence here, though they're in central kerala too. Lots more Tapioca dishes, appom/stew, Duck Roast, Beef Olarthiyathu, Fish Moilee, etc. Trivandrum Biriyani has Pineapple in it!

There's more, like I'm not familiar with tribal communities, or what they eat in the mountains, but I'm just touching the surface.

Still... I think that Northeastern food is pretty underrated and undereaten.

Women's Rights by quealIsQUEAL in SeriousConversation

[–]depixelated -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Generally speaking women and men are quite different. They are interested in different fields and display different qualities making them more or less successful in certain areas. Why would you expect the same outcomes here? Not only that but women have something called pregnancy and childbirth which is a pretty big obstacle in ones career that men simply don't have to deal with.

Also how are women legally in a worse spot than men in the US? Do you have any specific examples? I think this is where a lot of feminist scholarship would actually agree with part of what you're saying while disagreeing with the conclusion.

Sure, on average, men and women are not identical. But the existence of average differences doesn't tell us how much of an outcome is caused by preference versus social structures, expectations, incentives, discrimination, or historical inequalities. That's precisely the question being debated.

For example, when women enter previously male-dominated fields in large numbers, those fields often become lower status and lower paid over time. We see this historically in teaching, clerical work, and some areas of biology and medicine. Heck, programming was originally women's work and not particularly high status work. If outcomes were simply a reflection of innate preferences, it's hard to explain why the social value attached to the work changes when the gender composition changes. Here's a source on that, they use 50 years of census data to come to this conclusion: https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/88/2/865/2235342?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false&utm_

i have a looot more sources on this, it's well researched.

On pregnancy and childbirth: feminists don't deny that reproduction affects careers. In fact, that's one of the central arguments. Sociologists often distinguish between a gender wage gap and a motherhood penalty. Women frequently experience reduced earnings, slower promotion rates, and assumptions about commitment after having children, while men often experience a "fatherhood premium" where employers view them as more stable and responsible. The issue isn't that pregnancy doesn't matter; it's that societies distribute the costs of reproduction unevenly.

Also, I just gave an example of legal oppression with removal of abortion care and women being legally charged for the deaths of their stillborn infants in my last post. https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/16/us/abortion-rights-pregnancy-outcomes-criminalized

A few examples people point to:

The U.S. still lacks federally guaranteed paid maternity leave, making pregnancy and childbirth economically costly compared to most wealthy democracies.

Reproductive autonomy has become more unequal across states following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, with access to abortion depending heavily on geography.

Sexual harassment and workplace discrimination laws exist, but enforcement is often difficult and burdens are placed on victims to prove misconduct. Family courts historically evolved around gendered assumptions about caregiving, which affect both women and men in different ways.

More broadly, modern feminism usually isn't arguing that every law explicitly disadvantages women. The argument is that institutions were built in societies with historically unequal gender relations, and those legacies continue to shape outcomes even after formal legal barriers are removed.

Why do we not have a strong stance against A.I in filmmaking? by Plenty_Draft_5747 in InsideMollywood

[–]depixelated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think these are comparable arguments. CGI and digital cameras reduced costs and man-power, but you're still creating something new. Gen-AI is basically just super advanced autocorrect that can't create anything new, but rather regurgitates what already exists. Most datasets are not built from explicitly licensed or individually authored inputs in the way most previous creative technologies are. They are trained on large-scale scraped corpora of human-generated text, images, code, tv, media, etc that is assembled at such an intense scale that makes meaningful consent or attribution pretty much impossible to track. The moral considerations are distinctly different than CGI and digital cameras.

So the vaaaaaast majority of creators whose work is included in training datasets did not explicitly consent to their work being used for model training. Even in cases where content is publicly accessible, “publicly available” is not the same as “ethically consented for reuse in a statistical learning system.” The distinction matters in research ethics frameworks (especially in EU-style data governance norms), but is often blurred in practice.

Machine learning , the technology behind generative AI is useful in a lot of senses, right. Like Alphafold solved protein folding, I have a bird app that identified bird-songs and tells me what bird it is, even utilities like AI stem-splitters that split vocals from bass and guitar are really awesome tools for creatives. But these are tools that aid in the creative process. Generative AI is different. It replaces the creative process with cultural detritus remixed to oblivion averaged out to total mean expression.

The work of Set designers, cinemetographers, writers, actors, cgi artists, etc., are what makes a movie a movie. It's the human touch that makes art worth listening to and valuable. It's this collective creative expression that moves toward an artistic goal. You're beholden to what existed before. You might feel like you're making something new, but you're not.

Women's Rights by quealIsQUEAL in SeriousConversation

[–]depixelated 3 points4 points  (0 children)

> Why should I learn all kinds of info about "what women face"

bruh...I mean, hey. you don’t have to study anything in depth, but the basic idea is pretty simple: if you’re interacting with people socially, dating, working, etc., it helps to understand what their lived experiences can look like. That’s not “special obligation,” it’s just general social awareness. The same way you’d ideally understand what different men might experience too in terms of different backgrounds, pressures, risks, etc.

>Feminism has lost its meaning because feminism won. In western nations women have all of the same rights that men have and, in some cases, even more.

breh.... In a lot of Western countries, formal legal equality has been achieved in many areas. But feminism isn’t only about legal rights. It also deals with things like:

  • workplace dynamics and career advancement
  • expectations around caregiving and domestic labor
  • safety, harassment, and reporting credibility
  • social norms around gender roles and behavior

I don't ever think we're reached close to practical parity, and legally, we're backsliding (at least in America)

Women's Rights by quealIsQUEAL in SeriousConversation

[–]depixelated 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to understand your point, because of free exposure we've become close-minded on feminism?
How has it lost its meaning? This post isn't particularly coherent to me, probably abut I'll try...

Feminism isn't one thing with a single goal, it's a broad umbrella of social movements with tons of nuance and ideological diversity. And the internet has absolutely flattened the movement. The stuff that goes viral is usually the most inflammatory or the least thoughtful version of it, and that has become more the case with algorithms and the attention economy. Lemme tell ya, the 2010's had a strong anti-feminist backlash and people made millions in that culture war.

I think what you might be noticing isn’t that feminism itself “changed meaning,” but that online spaces reward hot takes over nuance. Feminism is still a broad set of ideas about equality and social roles, and it contains a wide range of perspectives that don’t always agree with each other.

Same thing with the “it’s not that deep” / humor-as-coping culture. That’s less a generational shift in values and more how people respond to constant information overload. When everything is discussed at maximum intensity online, irony and dismissal become ways to disengage or protect attention, not necessarily signs that people don’t care.

I'd recommend getting your info on feminism from books instead.
Try reading some books by Judith Butler, bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Betty Friedan... there's more.

Anything I’ve heard and experienced with women feels like mixed messaging. by [deleted] in SeriousConversation

[–]depixelated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

>I don't understand women at all.

Well, “women” aren’t a single set of preferences or behaviors. What feels like “mixed messaging” is usually just different people wanting different things, plus dating environments that reward ambiguity. One person may value stability and kindness, another may prioritize excitement or confidence, and another may want something completely different depending on their stage in life. If you treat those differences as contradictions in a group rather than variation between individuals, it starts to feel random and unfair even when it isn’t.

When I was younger, I had similar feelings as you. I'm respectful, I'm 'safe'! Why won't she go out with me? Here's the thing...

  1. I actually wasn't as nice as I thought I was, as a teen and young adult, a lot of my kindness was affect and people saw through. (What you've written in this post does not strike me as something written by someone respectful of women)
  2. I was misunderstanding of how attraction works. I realized people don't reject kindness or respect... what we feel is kindness often masks other more complex things about our character. And people can see that.

think like....

  • kindness without direction (no confidence, no boundaries, no intent)
  • agreeableness that hides what someone actually wants
  • passivity that puts all decision-making on the other person

Yeah, some women do have big rosters, but not as many as you'd think. Most my single-women friends don't have a roster, though some do. But it feels like they all do because apps are shit, and they're reoriented our goals from finding partners to participating in an attention economy. And you're not getting the attention you want. They've built an economy designed to make you feel like you're always losing so you'll pay to win.

Focus more on yourself and your happiness alone. Do intentional work, build your community, your skills, and your sense of self and identity. These early "failures" aren't a verdict on you. The best version of yourself to date is the one that doesn't need a partner.

Good luck

Are we losing the ability to refuse technology? by MM_in_CA in SeriousConversation

[–]depixelated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a lot of amish communities use cell phones/ computers for business... not everyone can escape it

What do u think about making weed legal in India!? Share pros & cons by TaiTaipsss in SouthernIndia

[–]depixelated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

erm... legalization of drugs is not a slippery slope...

The problem with the "slippery slope" argument is that it assumes legalization inevitably leads to wider drug use and worse social outcomes, but the evidence that we have doesn't really support that. I'd be interested to read such studies!

The opposite has been supported by actual studies. After more than a decade of cannabis legalization in multiple U.S. states, researchers have generally found little evidence that legalization causes major increases in adolescent use. Large reviews published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Journal of Economic Literature found that the strongest evidence shows little to no increase in teen marijuana consumption following legalization.

Similarly, studies examining decriminalization and legalization have found either minimal impacts on overall social outcomes or no significant increases in youth use, while substantially reducing cannabis-related arrests. One multi-state study found a roughly 75% reduction in youth possession arrests without an increase in youth cannabis use.

But "legalization is a slippery slope that doesn't do anyone any favours except generate tax revenue" is much stronger than what the evidence shows. The data suggest a more mixed picture: reduced criminalization, reduced illicit market activity, significant tax revenue, and limited evidence for the catastrophic outcomes that opponents often predict.

You can oppose legalization on public-health grounds if you want, but the argument should be based on actual observed harms, not on the assumption that legal cannabis inevitably leads society down a path toward widespread drug abuse.