We are not LI readers, but violence should always be condemned. Yet this only seems to happen from the government supporters' when such violence comes from a minority community and is nearly universally ignored whenever such violence comes from its own base (and even when police and state governments actively support and stoke such violence). You can not do one without also acknowledging and demanding condemnation of the other, and that's not about whataboutery but hipocrisy.

On that note, LI as a platform had always walked the talk on that front: here's one of many articles from 2012, condemning attacks on free speech by the previous government and Mamata for instance: https://www.legallyindia.com/201209143113/Analysis/a-short-history-of-indian-freedom-of-speech-laws-who-should-we-blame
While also accepting that some limits on freedom of speech are undesirable but may be required to prevent inciting violence, such as that threatened by fringe groups when Salman Rushdie was to read the Satanic Verses at the Jaipur Literature Festival:
https://www.legallyindia.com/home/column-how-free-should-we-be-to-speak-in-india-20120914-3114

Yet, there's also plenty of coverage and examples of, for instance, intolerance when fringe groups bullied a publisher into pulping an academic book which offended their sensibilities: https://www.legallyindia.com/201402114335/Bar-Bench-Litigation/penguin-pulps-hindu-book

So that's a definite refusal to:
a) engage with the substance of any point
b) condemn any of the things that supposedly 'no sensible person would agree with', according to the original commenter,
c) offer anything beyond ad hominem in response.

That very clearly establishes a lack of bona fide engagement and intentions, and will continue to inform moderation decisions, though we are always open to accepting genuine intelligent discourse on such matters, where not everyone has to agree and have the same political beliefs.

But: LI is intended to be a place for open debate and the sharing of genuine ideas and thoughts on matters, but it can not a place to spread things that are plain untrue or propaganda or bordering on hate, such as selectively trying to vilify minority communities.

By all means, criticise that islam as practiced in many parts of the world can be quite draconian when it comes to religious insult, but then don't try to deny that a lot of other religions have / have had very similar / different / and in some cases worse problems of intolerance linked to violence very close to home (which is particularly dangerous if religious zeal is backed by the force of the state).

As had been requested previously, this thread is a good case for potentially blocking all political discourse on LI, since organised groups of readers don't publish a constant stream of so-called "LW" threads that point out every single problematic thing the government does, and if they did, it would just turn the platform (more?) toxic like Twitter or Facebook.

So, we are proposing a simple smell test for moderation: 'If it smells like you wrote a post primarily because you hate or fear or trying to incite such feelings against any community as a whole (whether that be Hindus, Muslims, Christians or LGBTQ), it is a trollish post'.

Thanks for your comment. The original post made under this handle above was clearly a troll, but it seems to have had a result in that it has flushed out some often-made arguments that are non bona fide.

1. Beef: so you're fundamentally accepting that religious offense is very important, so if you are offended by me offending your religion (by eating beef or insulting your prophet), you have the right to punish someone else / take vigilante action (i.e. just like Nupur is getting a slap on the wrist now and will no doubt be politically rewarded again some time soon once things have died down?)

2. Menstruating in temples: again, you making the same point that religious offense is apparently important. If it offends me that you as a woman are doing X, I should have the right to stop you from doing so on religious or cultural grounds?

3. Yes, precisely "there are certain exceptions" who do force others to say Jai Shree Ram, and you say "no sensible person would agree with them". Then how do you explain that such vigilantes and such fringe have never been condemned or cracked down on by this dispensation or states in which it rules, but have actually been encouraged and supported and rarely receive criminal sanction?

4. 'You shoudl not be permitted to comment unless from Assam or WB'? That sounds like a freedom of speech issue, surely anyone should be able to and have an obligation to comment about anything happening in a country (and if geographical closeness is an indication of how strongly you have freedom of speech, then one should certainly have a stronger duty to comment about CAA than about human rights abuses in China).

4a. No one will beat you up if you speak out against CAA? People were literally beaten and imprisoned for speaking out or protesting against CAA, but such memories are short...

5. That's precisely the point: the 'special operation' crackdown in Kashmir was claimed to make things safer in Kashmir, instead it seems to have had the opposite effect. Who knew, government oppression and violence breeds more terrorism and radicalisation? Oh yeah, that's right, the government knows this...

6. 'Nobody has any problem with interfaith marriages'? So the vigilante campaigns by extremist right wingers breaking up random interfaith marriages inventing so-called 'love jihad' as an excuse is not a thing that actually exists then? Do you have any reliable statistics that forced conversions and 'love jihad' is an actual problem that demands vigilante justice?

6a: Can you at least condemn a bunch of vigilante incels who break up weddings violently, as well as condemn the sanction of state and police they often receive for such acts?

Responding to your lastly: 'secularism and inclusiveness' do NOT exist in India BECAUSE it is a Hindu majority country, they exist in India because it is a liberal democracy with a constition protecting minorities. If you want to say our democracy is still more democratic and protecting of fundamental rights than other totalitarian fundamentalist states, then you are probably right.

But that has everything to do with democracy and not with eroding exactly that democracy and vilifying another community and painting them as the root of all evil and bad things in this country that can only be fixed by the majority oppressing a minority.

Because the rational answer to such events should be to condemn both, not be to say, 'another community also has problems' therefore a majority government is justified in tacitly / explicitly encouraging radical fringe majoritarian elements on their own side and further divide and inflame tensions, rather than try to make good inclusive policy?

Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that a lot of posts professing to be espousing RW though are actually making bona fide argument? Most (but not all) seem to be intentionally trolling for a reaction or are basically posted with the intention of vilifying a minority community, which also happens to have experienced disproportionate discrimination by the current regime and its followers.

But well spotted, the post above under was clearly also intended to be trollish and has been marked as such, since it seems to have triggered a fair number of commenters...

Some background info on Sanad from a previous thread: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/224078-application-for-sanad-maharashtra-bar-do-i-need-to-go-to-the-bc-or-do-they-take-online

You do realise that it was 110% a part of defence strategy to plant the seeds of those rumours that they had a relationship, just like the touchy feely hugs in court are meant to suggest to the jury and public, look, my male client is a very friendly and sweet guy and even I would date him.

It's fine to be a fan of one side or the other, but as lawyers you / we should be a little more circumspect about the media spectacle the case actually was and not view it so uncritically like the average US TV watcher / Twitter stan / men's right activist / incel who sees this as vindication that all women are liars and metoo is a sham and women should go back to the kitchen and shut up more.

Maybe can you give some examples of jargon you don't understand?

Will start you off with:
DD is for due diligence.
A0, A1, A2, SA, SA-1, PA, etc are for Associate, Senior Associate, Principal Associate (and the number sometimes means how many years you've been at that level)

Due warning: any comments citing opindia will get an automatic troll tag - judging by historicla precedent and prior research, more likely than not, whatever is quoted in their articles is quoted out of context and the headline and article are spun to imply the opposite of what the actual facts are... Clicker beware...

Had managed to avoid seeing any videos of the trial but thanks for sharing: if the trial wasn't bad enoug, the style of media coverage of this thing really strongly implies that it was a farcical shitshow that had very little to do with justice...

Doesn't the US ever learn? The People vs OJ Simpson: American Crime Story is worth watching by the way, for those who want to learn more about this style of justice and how to lawyer / get lawyered in it...

The main (correct) point the comment made was that it shouldn't have been the media trial circus that it was, and such a trial does not enable the delivery of justice in cases such as these. By any stretch, this was surely a live televised and tweeted mud wrestling match, not a trial...

Bottom line is: Why the hell do should we care so much about them?

heh (bump for late moderation).

Though y'all really need to stop bandying the 'slave' word about so liberally: it does not mean what you think it means, especially not when you're getting paid decent money and CHOOSE to stay there (rather than, y'know, get hunted down and lynched by sanction of the state when you decide to quit)

Sorry to hear that you feel that way and apologies for the late moderation.

Short answer: yes, you will definitely be fine one day, even if it does not seem like it right now and what you're experiencing seems like the most and only important thing in the world right now. With time it becomes possible to deal with any situation, and eventually adapt and find new solutions and opportunities, even if those are not apparent now.

It does not make it much easier now, but sooner or later you will meet more people and your current social bubble will expand and most likely you will also find someone who understands you.

Take care!

Good answer in: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/193999-Interview-questions-for-an-internship-in-a-corporate-firm
Related / relevant: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/175565-what-should-i-study-for-last-minute-corporate-ppo-interview-prep

It'll vary hugely between firms but this might be a good starting point: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/221940-crowdsourced-open-and-fully-editable-list-of-salaries-in-indian-law-firms

Related / relevant: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/219246-leaving-how-do-you-best-do-it-after-only-a-few-months-and-get-a-good-notice-period

FYI: https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=%E0%A8%86%E0%A8%89%E0%A8%A3%20%E0%A8%B5%E0%A8%BE%E0%A8%B2%E0%A9%87%20%E0%A8%86%20%E0%A8%93%E0%A8%B9%E0%A9%80%20%E0%A8%A6%E0%A8%BF%E0%A8%A8%20%E0%A8%B5%E0%A8%BE%E0%A8%AA%E0%A8%B8%E0%A9%AC%20%E0%A8%9C%E0%A9%82%E0%A8%A8%20%E0%A8%A8%E0%A9%82%E0%A9%B0%20%E0%A8%B5%E0%A9%87%E0%A8%96%20%E0%A8%AD%E0%A9%9C%E0%A9%B1%E0%A8%95%E0%A9%87%20%E0%A8%AA%E0%A9%88%E0%A8%82%E0%A8%A6%E0%A9%87&op=translate

Previous similar / related threads: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/169345-Fresher-Salary-Tabulation-of-lots-of-firms
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/181177-Updated-Fresher-Pay-Tabulation

Ongoing crowd-sourced tabulation with lots of info:
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/221940-crowdsourced-open-and-fully-editable-list-of-salaries-in-indian-law-firms

Related and relevant: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/216356-Attire-in-law-firms
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/197399-what-do-women-wear-in-law-firms

not relevant:
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/218652-Dress-Code-for-Women-at-Khaitan