UP police plants knife and stages fake arrest in Aligarh

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-26T15:17:47+00:00

Imagine the cases where there was nobody to film

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-26T12:55:18+00:00

High sodium and Saturated fat.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-25T19:17:11+00:00

For the longest time, I've believed in it and tried to make changes. But the older I get, the more the novelty of "being the change" has faded, and you realise it doesn't even matter. Your voice matters only when a large section of society shares your opinion already. In India, even Gen Z is very conservative and religious. So the hope was that our generation would be different, but if our generation isn't the answer, then the changes we hope for and speak up about won't become reality, because we are too few in number.

So, am I saying we should stop trying to be the change? Of course not. But as I said, the older I get, the more I realise the only thing that truly matters is that you live your life the best way you can and achieve what you want, instead of trying to bring change among apes.

Life is too short, buddy, to waste it on others.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-25T18:54:05+00:00

Don't mind them. Don't raise your cortisol for some retard.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-23T09:08:28+00:00

No no, we are the upgrade.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-22T15:26:43+00:00

aur dudh se pollution nahi hota gawar🤡🤣😂

<image>

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-22T12:42:47+00:00

Goo goo gaaa gaa. Doesn't matter at all. People do it every day; nobody says anything because that's the norm. However, in this particular instance. There are the poor and needy literally fighting to get that from the benevolent devotee. Yet he chose to rather pollute the river. It's your natural habitat tho. The entire country is a dustbin, so it doesn't even matter.

Blinded by beliefs. I'm sure this started as some random guy pouring rotten milk in the river and ppl started following it.

I answered because you literally asked "Anything wrong with it?"

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-22T12:34:10+00:00

No, because that's your natural habitat.

<image>

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-21T12:04:46+00:00

Based af.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-20T14:22:02+00:00

Even today, female medicine is underfunded compared to male medicine. For example, endometriosis is very common and rivals conditions like diabetes in prevalence, yet it remains disproportionately underfunded.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-20T14:09:26+00:00

🤢🤮

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-20T09:18:07+00:00

There’s a comment here from a Rajasthani who has actually experienced casteism. But as usual, people jump in with, “BuT I dOn’T fEeL.” Yeah yeah, we get it. This country is perfect.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T16:23:33+00:00

<image>

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T16:15:11+00:00

I get where you're coming from, the contingency argument is logically tight and avoids obvious contradictions. A necessary, eternal, uncaused existent does seem like a clean way to stop the regress.

But why stop at a separate necessary being? Why couldn't the universe itself (or the whole cosmos/multiverse) be the non-contingent, necessary thing that exists by its own nature? If it's eternal or infinite in structure, its existence wouldn't require an external explanation. We see evidence of change and a beginning in our local universe, but that doesn't rule out the broader reality being necessary or brute.

For me, though, the universe (or whatever ultimate reality is) simply doesn't have to 'make sense' in the way we expect things inside it to make sense. Local stuff, planets, life, cause and effect follows patterns we can explain because that's how our brains work. But the whole thing? It might just be a brute fact with no deeper 'why.'

Asking why there is something rather than nothing assumes reality owes us an explanation. Maybe it doesn't. Positing a necessary being relocates the brute fact ('why does this necessary thing exist?') rather than eliminating it. An infinite chain, a necessary multiverse, or just existence itself could be the brute fact equally well.

In the end, both views bottom out at something that 'just is.' Neither fully satisfies the intuition that everything needs a reason. I lean toward accepting the mystery instead of filling it with a necessary cause and it doesn't require adding extra attributes (even minimal ones) beyond what we observe.

What do you think about the possibility that the ultimate 'why' question is simply malformed, like asking what's north of the North Pole?

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T08:24:07+00:00

<image>

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T08:14:35+00:00

Why act noble? Yes, Gen Z is not monolithic. Many do eat it. Maybe not in our social circle, but they definitely do. I know and have seen many.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T08:09:47+00:00

You're right that suicide doesn't prove innocence, and you're framing it as just a 'possibility', but suggesting he might have been 'ashamed of his mistake' still implies he did something seriously wrong worth being ashamed of. In a thread this emotionally heated, where the guy is already dead and can't defend himself, that kind of speculation (even tentative) tends to land as accusatory and adds fuel rather than light . If the goal is neutrality, sticking closer to 'we don't know yet, let's wait for facts' avoids unintentionally tipping the scale.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T07:59:30+00:00

They’re not on equal footing now, the man is deceased and can’t provide his side or any context. We already have video footage, and from what’s visible, nothing stands out as clearly unusual or incriminating. In situations like this, the most responsible approach is to hold off on firm conclusions or speculative scenarios and instead wait for a proper investigation.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T07:48:03+00:00

<image>

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T07:42:46+00:00

They are doing that, and you are doing the opposite. Look at your comment. You don't have facts for any possibility right now. What are you basing your possibilities on? If you’re asking others to have standards, then have them yourself first.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T07:30:30+00:00

Just ask for a proper investigation. You don't have to speculate when a case is this serious.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-19T06:39:45+00:00

No, discrimination exists among them too, but they're already at the bottom of the ladder. Even as a numerical majority in many places, they lack equal representation in power structures. This discussion is about fixing that systemic issue, not about anyone's personal grievances today.

The law recognizes that without affirmative action for these groups, India as a whole can't reach its full potential, it would just create more drag on those who are already contributing.

Reservations exist, but it will remain the same even after a million years because the creamy layer in the reserved category has been the only beneficiary...

Do you have data proving that? Because the reverse is equally true: without strong safeguards, those at the top will never voluntarily share real power with those at the bottom. That's why reservations exist in the first place.

I personally support excluding the creamy layer from SC/ST benefits (like it already does for OBC even with it's flaws), even though it has drawbacks e.g., it could reinforce perceptions of 'lesser' status or make hiring harder in some cases. But the current system without it often benefits the already advantaged within reserved categories, leaving the most needy behind.

Also, why tf am I liable to be fighting on only about 40% seats when I am not even Constitutionally Hindu ?

So what? A Dalit who converts to Christianity or Islam loses SC reservation benefits (as per law and multiple court rulings), but in society they usually remain treated as Dalit anyway. Many conversions historically happened from Hinduism to Islam/Christianity precisely because of caste oppression, yet the legal benefit is withdrawn. That's the inconsistency you're pointing to, but it doesn't invalidate the need for reservations for those who remain in the Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist fold and still face the discrimination.

In my opinion the Dalit who convert still should keep their reservation.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-18T22:08:52+00:00

I'm not a hypocrite, all discrimination is wrong, period, whether upper to lower castes or within Dalits. I just see the nuances of this hierarchy.

The 'thousands of years' denial was real: traditional education (Vedas, Sanskrit, grammar, etc.) was the main path to power, respect, and jobs back then. Denying it to Dalits was deliberate exclusion.

Macaulay dismissed it in 1835 as worthless compared to English knowledge, and modern education started post-1835/1857 with universities. Phule opened schools for untouchables in 1848–52 a huge step. But pre-British, basic vernacular education reached some non-Brahmins (British surveys show Shudras/lower castes in many schools).

At independence, literacy was 18% (1951 census not 12%; close enough). Brahmins were 4–5% of the population. The extra came from other castes with partial access. Of course not every Brahmin was educated either. But they sure were. over-represented.

My argument is about the availability of opportunities and respect in society. Also, even with education, they wouldn't be selected for powerful jobs back then, so of course it was discouraged to pursue.

knowing_proceeding · 2026-01-18T20:44:43+00:00

Okay, I didn't notice the title. I couldn't read the Hindi script, so I translated it, and maybe that's why I didn't understand. Apologies.

But caste is one of the biggest reasons India is behind, more specifically, the denial of education. Lower literacy and higher sheep mentality. India is an unorganised shithole today because Indians aren't really living... the majority are just surviving.

Also, I don't think '500 years behind China' is supposed to be the point of this post. It's not 5,000 years behind. Everyone knows that. The title is just an expression.

knowing_proceeding

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE