We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
And no, all kids aren't like that, these are especially YouTubeable ones who REACT (the clue is in the channelname) so you click on their video.
There are many resources available for those struggling with suicidal thoughts, including hotlines, counseling services, and support groups. It is important to know that you are not alone and that there are people who care about you and want to help, such as these and even potentially friends and family: https://www.scoopwhoop.com/health/suicide-prevention-helplines-in-india/
Also, what do you hope to achieve? And do you think the BCI will care about your letter? (Or whether the BCI even cares about anything at all? ;) Seriously though, what would be the ideal outcome here?
Not trying to denigrate or derail your initiative, which seems like a good idea, but since you're asking people to sign an anonymous petition, it's fair to ask these questions.
Benefit of the doubt is the only reason such posts and responses even go up, but once they veer into obvious political propagandising we mark those posts trollish (where they're still visible), but hopefully discourage pointless debate / feeding of the trolls, who don't actually really care about whether some communist party said something or not about Chinese communism years ago or who is condemnig sexual harassment or not...
Please talk about legal arguments and views, and leave your repeated unsubtle attempts to pointlessly / irrelevantly introduce political propaganda and ad hominem at the door, or alternately face the censorship hammer of the liberal-intelligentsia-communist-spectre-of-Winnie-the-Pooh-moderator, thank you very much.
And here are some blogs: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/246741-good-blogs-to-start-publishing-to-as-1st-year-law-student#comment-246778
> The only people who believe in wokeism are either 13-year old TikTokers or people with the IQ of 13-year old TikTokers.
And clearly you are also one of the crazy people to believe in 'wokeism'. Please can you get a reality check: wokeism is barely even real and is probably not what you (and out-of-touch Fox News anchors) think it is and it's nowhere as big a problem as you think it is, neither is it the Culture World War 3 that some people are trying to elevate it as that will destroy the world.
Dispute its arguments on its merits if you must where relevant, but just doing ad hominem and whining about 13-year-old tik tokers and 'the wokes are mean to me' and the wokes will get me censored on LI is childish and trollish and pointless, so please develop a new approach / interests. :)
Similary, the current dispensation has very rarely, if ever, condemned such violence against the Muslim community, and in some cases actively or covertly encouraged it. Furthermore, a strong Islamophobic agenda is very much core of their manifesto, as lots of party officials have repeatedly made clear.
Therefore, it is entirely logical, empirical and rational for a international newspaper to focus on these riots and the difficulty in getting justice (and without writing a deep-dive academic treatise of the cause of judicial delays in India).
1. Apparently yes, there are several such articles but you could have bothered doing that quick search yourself: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/05/pakistan-deploys-paramilitary-in-punjab-after-muslim-mob-attacks-hindu-temple
Interestingly, Pakistan's PM swiftly condemned the police's alleged inaction in that mob attack...
2. Well, it's a foreign newspaper, shouldn't it be writing about things that happened recently or that concern who is currently governing the world's largest democracy rather than obsessing about an opposition politician and the family's legacy?
Do you have some intelligent views to share on what you make of the article? Do you think politicians and police had no hand to play in encouraging or potentially inciting or supporting the Delhi riots? And do you think many / any of those allegedly at fault for the murders and assaults will see justice?
2. Your post is disingenuous: Columbia hasn't dumped SAT, they're just taking a holistic view and made it optional, according to that article.
3. Top UK universities like OxBridge have never required an SAT or other standardised testing score. You apply with personal statement and your high school marks, and they conduct an interview. Does that mean they're not merit-driven universities and are rubbish?
Dictatorships don't have mechanisms for improving the situation and the battle of ideas there has already largely been lost, short of revolutions or sanctions or war, whereas democracies are by their nature amenable to criticism and improvement, both internally and externally. Therefore, saving those democracies on the brink with the tools that the study of law encourages, seems worthwhile.
But by all means, feel free to stand outside the Chinese or Iranian or North Korean or Saudi or Quatari or Venezuelan or El Salvadorian or Afghanistan or countless other embassies and hold a protest, if you think it is worthwhile. You'd probably be right too, but the sad reality is that those countries won't care and even its citizens won't even get to know.
A legitimate and interesting follow-up response from you could have been: should Indian university law and politics students and professors spend more time studying democracies or totalitarian states? And a possible answer could have been: there's probably something to learn from both, but if you're learning about the rule of law, surely democracies have more to offer there (unless you're interested inspecialising in how to make a career as a lawyer in North Korea or something).
Also: on what basis and for how long would you criticise dictatorships in academia? Could you write an academic paper about why [dictatorship X] is bad? Perhaps. But would it be very interesting, academically, or kinda obvious and something Chat GPT or any 10-year-old could churn out? Criticising a complex, vibrant and flawed democracy like the US political or legal system, however, requires a lot more nuance and understanding, and is more likely to teach you something about other democracies, including even India.
>In 2013, leaked internal financial documents revealed that 58% of the ACSH's donations in the period from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, came from corporations and large private foundations, many of which themselves had ties to industries. Donors included Chevron, Coca-Cola, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Bayer Cropscience, Procter & Gamble, Syngenta, 3M, McDonald's and Altria. In addition, the documents revealed that the organization had on numerous occasions directly solicited donations from industry sources on the basis of projected reports on the specific issues in which those companies and industry organizations had such a stake.[1]
Can't you find better sources than this or the Daily Mail for your bizarre anti-fat / woke-baiting / something or other crusade, or are you just not trying very hard?
Universities have lots of random foreign politicians giving talks all the time - why is this one tickling you so much particularly?
So unless you're a friend who genuinely cares and is prepared to listen, or a doctor, your fat-shaming is not actually doing either them or you any favour, but more often than not just an excuse to comment on someone else's body or stick your nose into something that's not your business.
Quote: -----------
seems like chatgpt thinks that top law schools have to be 'national' :)