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?
If someone from the other side of the spectrum could engage constructively to this, please try to engage with the points mentioned herein rather than going off on a tangent rants or ad hominem (such posts will not be published).
I would genuinely and honestly like to know whether there are argument's J Sai Deepak's book makes besides espousing a Hindu state, or whether and why you think there are good reasons that there should be a more Hindu state (in spite of India's secular history).
What I've found interesting is that some of the talking points of the fringe alt-right seem to be based on kernels of truth (i.e., corporate media is biased, capitalism and governments control individuals, freedom of speech is being attacked by accountable organisations, etc), though they usually over-simplify matters intentionally, which can make it an attractive philosophy for the reasons you describe. At the same time, the left-leaning US media and internet (and some humans) on the left of the spectrum too can sometimes have a tendency to over-simplify or demonise. This seems to result in more extreme narratives on both sides where there is very little common meeting or talking ground.
Do you see any potential solutions or ways forward, or is this just life now?
The reason we were somewhat strict in moderating this attack in DYC is that in our mod experience, posts likes this are largely:
1. disingenuous, in that in our prior hard-won experience, they are never actually looking for a discussion or to engage constructively, and just throw their toys out of the pram or stoop towards ad hominem if you try to have a reasoned discussion or put up some contradictory points or fact check or ask them to justify their points (as evidenced in the dodging replies / lack of engagement to our mild fact check above in this thread),
2. orchestrated, in that they are rarely original thought but are just copy-pasta talking points from some trolls on Twitter, WhatsApp or random blogs intended to provoke outrage or shitpost.
Either of those two reasons should be reason enough to not publish a comment at all, though we still err on the side of freedom of speech (more often than we should perhaps) and publish such comments, but with a warning label attached, and if possible or required, with a fact check or counter-argument from mod, so LI does not become instrumental in the mindless spreading of shitposts.
That's one of the issues that Madhava Menon had though: if you have high fees, less well-off graduates will have few options OTHER than the corporate and law firm sector to recoup these loans, and NLS was founded in order to also feed other parts of the legal ecosystem. But arguably that ship has already sailed, even without a fee hike.
>In the worst case, just post on social media and you will immediately get help from senior lawyers and law firms.
Is that really true / does that really work?
Quote: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/livelaw-recruits-vacancies-for-reporters-in-seven-high-courts-217630
Quote:
Then again, it's very hard to know at CLAT age what you really want to do with your life, so another option is doing law for one year at NLS, and decide after a year whether you want to drop out and try for another exam or course...
I always wondered whether it's possible to come back from an almost-alt-right POV and whether most / any people can even ever move between both sides of the spectrum. Politics and leanings seem like such a hardwired thing in many people (other than arguably a common drift towards conservatism as you get older), or something that seems to become hardwired or people double-down on very quickly, that it becomes very hard to find common ground between both sides (and good arguments don't really seem to cut it once an opinion is formed).
One question I had for you, if you don't mind: what did you find attractive about the alt-right 'movement', 'sub-culture', 'literature', etc, when you were toying with the ideas? I can see that the eco-system can be a fascinating, but that can't solely be the reason people are into it, right?
If your point is simply that cultural discourse is polarised and both the left and right of the spectrum in the US lie and are hypocritical in different spheres, and that political correctness vs freedom of speech online is a complicated subject, then maybe this does not deserve more great discussion, unless you have something specific to add that you would like to discuss.
But it seems you are just sharing a video with the afterthought "also, let's discuss". If you can't suggest a legitimate avenue of discussion or angle on this, will unpublish this thread as off-topic. What's next: Trump, AOC and Bernie Sanders speeches?
But if US politics like this is of genuine interest to readers, please let us know.
But, even if we don't get into specifics, do we even want to get into a game where some seats are labelled as meritorious (good), and others are by implication non-merit (i.e. neutral or 'bad')? What about women's quotas? State quotas? Disability quotas? Are all the ones who get into those, without merit?
Also, neo-stalinist and neo-maoist might make sense, if there was such a thing? Who do you think would fit the bill? Maybe calling the chinese neo-communists could make sense, though it probably makes them sound both cooler (because Neo is cool - have you not seen the Matrix?) and more communist than they actually are, as it might be more accurate to describe them as fundamentally totalitarian / neo-fascist free-market capitalists with a heavy 'guiding' hand of the state, which is communist in not much except the name of the party and a couple of social welfare programmes.
We hereby retract our earlier comment when the first Babones thread was posted a month ago, when we had initially said he looked a bit batty, then we watched his full India Today video after urging, and retracted out statement and clarified that he wasn't completely batty:
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/242851-indias-intellectual-class-is-anti-india-as-a-class-and-not-as-an-individual-salvatore-babones-at-india-today-conclave#comment-243278
Have done you the favour of watching the full video now, and can confirm: the video is shared by Pgurus (first flag), and the fellow started out ranting about George Soros, and it didn't get better from there.
There was some conspiracy stuff about Tulsi Gabbard, Hinduism, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Omidyar, yadiyaa something, then he rants inexplicably about the weather in Hawaii and how much he likes going to Hawaii for vacations. Then he went into rigged elections, communists, fixing British democracy or something along those lines. The only thing missing was mentioning lizard people and actually criticism of Newslaundry...
The only core to his argument is that Omidyar provided some seed funding to Newslaundry, but it's also riddled with factual errors, in that he can't even get the stake owned by Omidyar right (if someone's really interested in Newslaundry ownership structure, they're quite upfront about it: https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/07/02/who-owns-newslaundry ).
And he also does the old trick of: "I'm not saying Newslaundry is XYZ [insert thing you hate or that scares you here], but questions should be asked." That's scarcely better than this kind of stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc3vt1Gqrn4
Feel free to check out the video on PGurus YouTube channel but the video doesn't need to be amplified on LI or add to the discussion.
Priceless: Piers' expression when Tate keeps saying he doesn't care about Taliban banning women from getting an education.
Also priceless: Piers trying to both agree and disagree with Tate that feminists are bad.
Also lol: Piers explains how the police arrested someone but eventually didn't prosecute someone who made a death threat against Morgan's family on Instagram. Tate: "If that same man called a transgender person the wrong pronouns, he would be in trouble... That would never happen in a place like the United Arab Emirates, a place I'm now residing." Lolz.
Finally, why is Tate so scared of crime all the time? He walks around Harrods with 6 bodyguards, and he's still scared someone will steal his watch? Isn't he some kick-boxing champion?
2. Please explain the word 'wokism'. What is this thing you speak of? Is it a religion? Is there a book I can read so I can become one?
3. Please explain the word 'Marxist'? Are you born with it or do you catch it later in life? Do I have to apply for a membership card, and can I just choose to be one?
Will be happy to sign up for whatever you have in mind, pls let me know so I can make an informed decision.
I.e., neoliberal by itself is surely not toxic, any more than 'socialist' is toxic by itself: i.e., when used descriptively as in "this government is following neoliberal policies" or "your arguments are fundamentally socialist".
But using any of those as a pejorative would be toxic. Then again, so would calling someone a 'clown', and no one is proposing 'banning' clown or reducing its use in discourse.
https://www.newslaundry.com/subscription
As a historical side note, you're right that all this is not a "new-fangled woke project", but it used to be called "political correctness" in the 90s and back then certain people were up in arms about wanting to have the right to use words such as "chairman" or "lady doctor", most of which are now accepted to be somewhat archaic.
Back then, the criticism was about "it's political correctness gone mad", by people like Jeremy Clarkson. Then after a decade or two of relative quiet in those culture wars, the battle is back again with the "wokes gone mad" and are trying to ban my words.
In short, nothing is ever new, language will keep evolving, people will fight about it and will come to some compromises. Rinse, repeat :)
Regarding featuring, most anti-reservation comments are full of statements amounting to "oh the wokes are the downfall of human civilisation", "to mention caste is to encourage Hinduphobia", "only upper castes are smart" and other such pearls. If you agree with those statements and want them featured, please print the comments out or start a Facebook group or something.
If there's a well-argued argument adding to the discussion made against reservation or for a conservative cause, without ad hominem, hate, untruths like the above examples, we have and will feature those comments. That is not a high bar and should not be difficult.
"LawChatGPT, write me a draft seller-friendly response to this email from the Buyer on this SPA's warranties".
You're right, you'll still need a lawyer to look at it before it goes out and there'll be scope for top lawyers to negotiate that extra bit. Question would be whether that kind of gain in efficiency would reduce billings because GPT has written 90% of your draft in 2 seconds, or whether lawyers will find new revenue streams or billing models to compensate.
Or it could be that the software has developed sentience and realised that malarkey poster should be shadow-banned from voting, judging by their propensity to believe unlikely conspiracy theories about how they are being victimised by the bad left-wing man? :)
All we're suggesting, contrary to the media response: don't start panicking just yet in India.
While it's theoretically possible the virus came from a lab and China undoubtedly mismanaged the early days of the pandemic (and the current wave also), there is only circumstantial evidence for this theory and no peer reviewed evidence at all.
And does that mean all media except Telegraph and Newslaundry and The Wire and Scroll are toeing the central government's line?
Gryffindor peeps take themselves far too seriously, Ravenclaws never leave the library, but Hufflepuff and Slytherin are obviously where it's at, they have freedom to discover themselves (except technically Slytherin, who are free to do whatever they like as long as it includes being evil)