Whereas efficiency has built only good things, like the pyramids, global warming and highly efficient death camps? :)

(oh, and equity has probably also bought you the right to freedom of speech protected in more equitable countries that lets you criticise equity freely :)

FYI, we've just tried downvoting or upvoting some posts and on some it also seems to be stopping us from voting. The current algorithm we use to prevent double voting while retaining anonimity of votes might indeed be a bit too aggressive, hence the experience that seems to be had by some. We'll see if we can tweak it.

Well this is certainly helpful and enlightening (as to where you were coming from).

From what you say, I understand you are largely talking about cultural conservative positioning. It's important to note that you don't seem to (for example) be speaking of fiscal conservative positions or model of governance from a conservative point of view.

I make note of this precisely because it illustrates the point I was making. You are not conservative in the sense that you think you are. Perhaps you can consider shedding these western labels when you take such positions in the future.

First - I will speak in this post largely on the so-called Hindu traditions and cultures. I'm consciously leaving out the long and rich history we have with Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jain(ism?), Parsi cultures in our country. In particular, Islam has been in India for more than a millenia so I'm not sure why we should forget it but we'll leave that be.

Second - to address the link to this being conservative, I would like to note that only the Americans (and maybe to some extent the Brits) really see this whole "preservation" of traditional family values as a core tent built into their socio-political conversation.

To be clear, they have to do this because Christianity is a religion. But let's be clear on "hinduism" - this is a term the british put together for us. Hinduism can at most be categorised as a family of religions - but it is really a way of life. As a general rule of thumb, Hinduism hasn't had a singular scripture to guide us - it is an outcome of the evolution of tradition and culture over millenia.

The point being that this is so-called tradition you are trying to preserve is not "hindu" culture but rather the colonial values that have been brought to down to us by the british. There is ample of evidence of same sex relationships having existed in our history, LGBT folks and their relationships having been recognised in various literary works from ancient India - best to read up on those before you call these out as being non-traditional. Here is a link that I dug from a quick google - https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2022/10/homosexuality-hinduism-and-the-concept-of-sin/

Sure, divorce as a concept may not have been categorised as much in ancient India - but do note that it was common for men to have multiple wives (yes even in Hindu tradition) - and I guess there's something to be said for evolution and growth as a culture (though I can see why you would disagree here if you are a conservative). Meaning - things do change and the Hindu "religion" revognises such change. Here is a nice article that really outlines how the Hindu scriptures themselves have evolved on this topic - https://www.dailyo.in/lifestyle/hindu-marriage-divorce-puranas-dharmashastra-hinduism-19280.

Third - On the other aspects of family / community / togetherness etc. While I do agree that our culture was (and is to some extent if you are in touch with your roots) based in community and family - and this is something I also strongly believe in, I'm not entirely sure what legallyindia is doing to suppress as a thought. I don't think anybody here is censoring those kinds of thoughts.

Last and in conclusion - if you are indeed a strong believer in empathy towards society as a whole, I would suggest that you embrace that empathy and find belief in that each person is just trying to do the best for themselves and for the world. If somebody wants to get divorced its for their happiness. If somebody wants to marry someone of the same sex its for their won happiness. Community and togetherness doesn't come from homgeneity and uniformity, it comes from equity and happiness for all.

I'll leave with this comment. Peace.

I've seen various personal attacks, but that's not news to me, heard it enough from the other side. Cant do nothing without valid rebuttals eh.

I'm shocked that you do not see the unique conservatism in Indian tradition, which is quite distinct from the world perhaps the epitome as seen in various parts as well.

Conservatism is distinct in India. It is not muddled with colonial ideology. It is the rich Hindu traditions passed down for millennia.

One of the key tenets of conservatism in India is the importance of family. This is deeply rooted in our family laws, which are presently violated by British liberal ideas. It opposes liberal social policies that undermine the traditional family structure, such as same-sex marriage and easy divorce laws. It also supports policies that promote family values, such as financial incentives for married couples and policies that make it easier for parents to raise children.

Family is seen as a unit of society carrying forward its oneness and tranquility, where everyone collaborates in their own unique ways to maximum happiness. This leads to procreation and proliferation.

Therefore, a couple must not be allowed to divorce easily enough, but only in the most grave manners. Perhaps never. Loosening the law allows people to get married like in Vegas over drinks, get pregnant, abort them, and move aside like nothing happened. People don't see commitment in relationships anymore, they Ghost each other so easily. Physical relationship, is not a thing, it's called having sex, there's no mutual understanding for a "relationship".

Another important factor is festivity and community. Almost all festivals in India involve the society coming together to celebrate a harvest season and share grains amongst them. It was really never about making those memes or sending that one message in the family WhatsApp group. Community was divided based on work profiles so everyone contributed in their own ways. A man's life was divided into four work profiles, so he works his hardest during one period, and then rests in the other. This is a system, a tradition, a norm in society.

This ensured everyone worked equally hard and some don't take away the hardwork of others. This ensured people don't long working hours to health issues. People were actually happy and not sociopaths in the present era. Almost everyone I meet is dead in their eyes, especially in law school. Everyone does something, only if they absolutely have to and not to respect or empathise with others. People don't see following law as a moral duty to society, but keep lawyer contacts to get bail. Ironically, in the west people actually have a moral duty to law.

Don't let the media fool you saying that conservatives are Buddhas who go to temples everyday and wear weird accessories. No it's not, quite the contrary. Its mostly about public morality values of empathy towards the society as a whole.

Useless philosophical world? Just look at the US now, and how the lib democrats are wasting tax payer funds and then raising taxes. Look at Scotland that removed rape sentences for Under 25 year olds and made "rehabilitation" Compulsory. I have been through trials and seen courts closely, and I can swear on my head that no actual rape convict can be "rehabilitated".

Now, in the US, your 12 year old child can legally go to a doctor, get diagnosed with atrophy in a day, and change their gender in an irreversible and mostly regrettable surgery. Similarly, the President can release one order "excusing" millions in student debt, when you see your hardworking parents are working day in and day out to pay that fees for you only to find their taxes are raised by 10% to pay off others debt whose parents are probably wasting their money on booze.Now, a Fentanyl (Poisonous deadly drug) dealer can legally enter the US from Mexico, rape women along the pay, who are now forced to take pills EXPECTING a rape to happen on the journey, and distribute it in schools, and the border patrol/ police cant do ANYTHING about it. You can now be victim to a school shooting, and all everyone talks about is taking away peoples rights to use guns for any purpose (including self defence), but also defunding the police so they cannot enforce action against accused persons.

be thankful you are in a country, where conservatism is the actual tradition passed down from ages. There are norms in the society, there are ethos.

hence however "political" it sounds because of some liberal interest groups hijacking the "wokeness" in their favour, or even the media, It most certainly isn't "USELESS"

Dear commenter, that likely sounds like a case of paranoia, possibly caused by spending too much time trolling on and getting trolled by Elon Musk's daily-changing Twitter 2.0 algorithms getting to you :)

Seriously though, comments don't get categorised on the basis of political leaning, and even comments marked trollish or contested can be normally voted on. There is some (anonymised) IP address checking in place, with some small overlaps, so some places might share similar IP addresses that could cause this error and misidentify you as a double-voter. Does it happen very often?

I'm very curious to understand the definition of conservative position in the Indian context. I ask this question with genuine curiousity given that the whole "liberal" v. "conservative" movement is primarily a western construct. What features of the conservative political thought is the "Conservative Union of Law" looking to preserve?

If I can get into this deeper - convervatism per wikipedia is, "conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears."

So the first question to ask is - which cultural, social or political philosophy is sought to be promoted and preserved?

As the LegallyIndia moderator has somewhat pointed out - a lot of the "conservative" movement in the online space today is an offshot of the "political right" in the western political movement, whose presense is grounded in bigotry, xenophobia, racism and sexism - and which for some reason, some Indians seem to adopt and call as a political philosophy. If you believe you are not in that bucket - then please highlight specific positions where you are espousing a conservative philosophy that isn't in any of the above mentioned buckets.

Here in India, a lot of our social, political and cultural positioning is a mixture of our colonial history, our independent Indian development and our ancient historical mixture of religions and traditions. It weaves a rich tapestry that is neither easy to categorise as a singular tradition nor a unified culture. So once again - please specifically identify your socio-political positioning before assuming that there is a bias.

Last, before quoting Voltaire - I would strongly suggest that you stop listening to political ideology from the western lens and instead look to first understand the underlying lens basis which you make such demands.

Again, without first ensuring that rules of evidence are fully present in consciousness impressioned in the on-going argument, it is anybody's word about what is the basic test of 'prima facie' reasonableness or truthfulness. Also, trolling/triggering is also a form of speech that behaves as a definition for a longer debate and argument. For e.g, calling someone a 'bhakt/woke' is just reference to a longer and on-going debate, all of which can't be reproduced like contract's recitals everytime there is an online debate and discussion.

If you want to say that as the moderator, you want to keep the place clean, then be my guest, but kindly refrain from arrogating to yourself the high chair of arbitrating on the truths of the day.

It's not about reasonableness: it's about whether the opinions are likely reasonably held, stand up to a very basic test of prima facie reasonableness or truthfulness, or are just posted to troll or trigger. That is often a judgment call and not easy to figure out with fairly sophisticated and regular attempts made to subvert conversation, but it is a decision we believe to usually get right.

The comments that didn't get published on this thread are evidence thereof. Don't make unsophisticated statements oversimplifying the world, politics, organisations or intentions, and if you do want to make such statements, provide justification in a non-confrontational and cogent manner. Use of words like 'leftism', 'wokism' will result in moderation just as much as comments calling the other side 'bhakts' or whatever.

To those who are upset by that: you are lawyers - think for yourselves, be smarter than how the powerful are brainwashing you to think, don't let people like newspaper editors, TV anchors, politicians or billionaires do your thinking for you.

LI and moderation is not about protecting free speech: the aim is to create a forum where valuable and useful discussion takes place. Insults, bigotry or disingenuous comments or propaganda are not conducive to that aim. Freedom of expression is the side product that remains after that.

And we filter plenty of insults made by 'leftists, progressives, liberals' (much of which you never see). The fact that you think we don't might mean that you are easily triggered by rebukes or criticism?

That's the problem. You can't decide whether a conservative voice is reasonable or not. There is no objective reality about what constitutes 'reasonableness'. It's very context specific. Now whether a comment made in respect to a particular context, is sensitive to the context or not is again something that is beyond the perfect evaluation of any one person.

So just like the OP is asking, kindly get down from your high horse and let all views prevail.

Insult was never a bar for free speech. Insult and offence are part and parcel of any meaningful speech guarantee, it is asinine to say "you may speak freely except if I feel offended".

Humanity has gotten far thanks to the power of scathing critique, which allows us to look beyond institutions and communities pretending to be holier-than-thou. The church was very offended by heliocentrism, perhaps as much as you would be if someone rejected your gender ideology.

Furthermore, insult made by your lot (leftists, progressives, liberals) is never filtered by you.

Well said: if conservative voices can talk as reasonably as you, we're all for it and promise not to censor you. However, for some people on this platform 'conservatism' seems to be a licence to insult other commenters or communities, or to make statements purely for the outrage factor / lulz. But if you genuinely hold conservative views and can express these rationally and sensibly, please go for it: this is intended to be a safe space for genuine debate.

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns about the apparent bias against conservative content on this platform. While I understand the importance of maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all users, I believe it is equally important to promote free speech and encourage open-minded dialogue, regardless of one's political beliefs.

I have noticed that several conservative posts have been flagged or removed, while liberal posts with similar content have been allowed to remain. This suggests that there may be an inherent bias against conservative voices on this platform. I would respectfully request that you consider being more fair and impartial in your moderation practices, and not continuously flag only conservative posts. I believe that by creating a more balanced and inclusive environment, we can work towards fostering productive and meaningful conversations on important issues, rather than silencing certain perspectives. Thank you for your attention to this matter

As the great philosopher Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Let's strive towards creating a society where all voices are heard and all opinions are respected, even if we don't always see eye to eye.