Thanks for sharing your experience, but surely the same experiences would also apply to a Muslim trying to live in a Hindu society in Mumbai (but often worse, in that they often wouldn't even be offered a flat). Same goes for Christian societies or Parsi societies, or Brahmin neighbourhoods in villages and so on. India was divided and conquered by the British just like that, why repeat and exacerbate those mistakes instead of trying to fix them?

Not an Ambedkar scholar but that selective quote certainly seemed like an oversimplification that is part of the historical landscape of the time.

If there is something in that book that you think is relevant for modern day politics and trying to run a pluralist society, please do share, happy to learn.

Surely most liberals don't defend Islam per se, and many do criticise islamic practices which don't mesh with their liberal worldview. What liberals object to is using such arguments as a fig leaf for islamophobia and discrimination.

This 'slow expansionim' you claim seems to be exactly that. How is Islam in India in the 21st century comparable to expansionism of the British empire, any more than modern-day Christians in India aren't expansionist because of the crusades or modern-day Hindus aren't responsible for imperialist Hindu emperors or conquerors. Most religions have expansionism in their books, and those that don't - even Buddhism - have had powerful misuse the scriptures to expand their power. That's simply history but it' says very little about culture.

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.

Maybe it's not widely taught because its a statement that vastly oversimplifies an entire religion, appears laden with prejudice and was written in a specific political and historical context. In a modern context it is obviously islamophobic and not helpful or educational in any practical way (unless you are pursuing an islamophobic agenda)?

The OP question also seems like a bit of a non-starter: in the US, just because some of the founding fathers had slaves or may have held racist views, doesn't mean such racist views should be studied uncritically nowadays, even if they have contributed other useful literature.

Or are you trying to 'cancel' Ambedkar or something, like some liberal woke type?

Yes, it can throw up a bit much right now, we need to improve the search...

One hacky option that can be useful is to try searching LI via an external search engine with the site:legallyindia.com/convos restriction, like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Alegallyindia.com%2Fconvos+gnlu

There are a few previous posts with GNLU reviews, here's one: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/231521-should-i-go-with-gnlu-or-prepare-again-with-college-also-a-small-review-about-gnlu-will-be-appreciated

Not agreeing: Tate bought women with money because he literally paid them money to operate an internet catfishing business scamming lonely guys out of their life savings. Plus he (allegedly) also trafficked women and moved to Romania because he thought laws are less strictly enforced there. All that says nothing about women, but it does confirm that you can hire or bribe people, of whichever gender, with money (which might also be Tate's point, since he obviously believes money is the most important thing in the world).

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?

What nonsense, as most of what Tate spouts / spouted: what's clear is no women ever looked at Tate until he started paying them to look at him. Didn't Madonna date one of her backup dancers? Aren't 'toy boys' a thing? Look into sex tourism for rich women from rich countries going to less rich countries for sex? If you were a rich woman, would you particularly have a specific reason for not dating an attractive young person with a good personality (besides avoiding potential 'gold digging', which rich men would presumably also avoid)? The only thing he is might mean (but doesn't say) is that there are fewer rich women than rich men, but that's what it means to live in the patriarchal society that Tate espouses and wants.

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?

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.

What about straight people who get married but one has a vasectomy or one is infertile or one has slow sperm and can't have kids "without assistance from medical technology or adoption"? Is procreation still a possibility for them and is it therefore still a valid union? Just checkin', since we're talking fallacious arguments... ;)

Has anyone (other than perhaps NUJS?) actually published easily verifiable and accurate placement data in the last few years? Most NIRF data has been a little bit vague, though better than nothing. As such NLUD is probably not an odd one out in this context and not sure it's been dishonest - any actual examples / facts?

Is that true? Technically did more than 50% of AILET top rankers also rank similarly highly in CLAT? Won't disagree that a significant number of them may have and that the comment is hyperbolic and a little bit trollish, but it may be strictly technically accurate (unless you have a basic Google search that shows otherwise)?

Thank you for confirming the disingenuous intent behind the original comment and that it was the correct decision to mark it trollish (if you are indeed the same SOTY LLB who wrote the first comment). The only cause for concern is that it perhaps should not even have been published in the first place, with or without a tag.

'Wokism' (whatever that means) might have its problems but honestly, how is it a cancer? Please explain how you think it will destroy 'us'? Is it about censorship and freedom of speech? The 'non-wokes' (whatever that means), do at least as much censorship / cancelling regularly (see 'anti-woke' posterchild Elon going on opaque censorship sprees on Twitter for instance).

It seems unlikely that they would break up just before potential liberalisation... Unless they think the new rules are so restrictive it would stop them from opening their own office while also in close alliance with a local Indian law firm, and they don't want to paint a larger target on their back for the first Balaji-type writ petition?

Read the headline, the article and the lede, all of which says not much of anything beyond this piece of conjecture: "Mukulika Banerjee, who has been a close associate of Rahul Gandhi, could have been powering this hate campaign". Note the word 'could' and complete lack of any actual evidence other than speculation... That's surely neither journalism nor a 'Rahul Gandhi link', any more than there'd be a Kolkata Knight Riders link in this case if Mukulika Banerjee was a fan of KKR...