jaldhar

Sure. I’m not trying to whitewash colonialism just pointing out that it is a lot more complex than the standard anti-colonialist view would have you believe. E.g. in the context of Egypt, the Ottomans were also a colonial imperial power. To ignore that is also “White supremacist”.

It is as a student of history that the more I learn, the more I realize that The "White people did colonialism and everyone was sad" attitude I grew up with is simplistic when not flat out wrong. Egyptians (who were technically not part of the British Empire) were willing participants in the mummy trade. To ignore that is also dehumanizing.

The trick is to find non-white people so indifferent to their traditions and culture* that they’ll sell it to white supremacists for material gain.

*Also did 19th century Muslim Egyptians really consider mummies part of “their” culture? Or is the idea of “Egypt” also a White imperialist imposition?

What you are saying is generally true (and certainly true for many Indian texts), but the oral tradition of the Vedas really is old. Having been brought up in the West I only learned enough for daily and occasional rituals. My guru taught me without looking at a book and although I have such books now I bought them for curiosity only; if I had a question about recitation it would not occur to me to consult them. My son has learned the same way.

Central to the culture is the idea that a marriage is between two families not two individuals. Some people care more, some less.

Is a dating site profile creepy and weird to you? It’s the same thing basically.

I single out Christians BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING J D VANCE. You keep talking about faith in the abstract but no one believe in Faith, they believe in specific faiths. Remember the story that started this thread was about how MAGA Indian-Americans are purportedly having second thoughts about it. Of all the things Vance could do to contribute to that feeling, this is not one of them.

Now traditional Hindus are unabashedly patriarchal; we don’t even try and pretend but if you think that’s what’s happening here you really don’t understand. (And let me again point out understanding != endorsement.)

A major difference in viewpoint is between those who believe the fundamental moral unit is the individual versus the family (or tribe or nation depending on context.) The labels left and right don’t really fit; let’s say universalist and particularist. Vance and I both believe that our faith is true and better than any other therefore it is important that our families who we love more than anyone else share that true belief. Vance also has the universalist belief that _everyone_ should share his faith whereas I do not but as far as spouses are concerned we are in agreement.

The only unusual thing about this is typically it’s the other way around. The husband is blasé about religion and it’s the wife who is more devout, drives family church attendance etc. Take one of my neighbors for instance. She is almost a parody of a Jewish liberal; there are few universalist causes she doesn’t support except when it comes to Judaism. Her husband is of Jewish descent but raised as an atheist in the Soviet Union. He goes along with all her observances even though he doesn’t afaik care personally because “it’s good for the kids.” Is he “subservient”? Is he being “dominated”? That would be a very jaundiced way of looking at it.

Are you married?

Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.

I have noticed that for all their vaunted “empathy” leftists have great difficulty in understanding what motivates other people. Read Jonathan Haidt, he has a lot to say about it.

I’m now in the awkward position of trying to explain Christianity which I don’t know how well I’m doing but here goes. The emphasis in American Evangelical theology is on a personal conversion experience which can occur at any moment in life. So the present condition of a person doesn’t matter as long as there is the possibility of being “born again”.

Now Vance is Catholic but he is a convert who grew up Protestant (and his recent spat with the Pope suggests it might not have entirely rubbed off.)

For me it absolutely was a deciding matter.

That’s sad. I hope (there it is again!) you feel well soon. I personally have never let politics alter my mood despite being surrounded by people who are let’s just say wrong about everything.

If you read “Mostly these are not national issues but the national party sets the tone.” and understood that I think the president fixes potholes then maybe you should do the country a favor etc.

As I mentioned before, I live in a blue state as most Indian-Americans do. I can tell you every racist encounter me or my family has ever had (thankfully not a lot) has been with people who if they voted at all voted Democrat. The Internet is not real. Groypers don’t actually exist in my world. Crime, potholes, fraud, woke extremism and low standards do. Mostly these are not national issues but the national party sets the tone.

In 2028, I can see Indian-Americans voting for Vance or Rubio. If it is someone more extreme than that I don’t know. Last time I asked who the Democrat nominee should be. No one answered. If it is someone who is merely “not Trump” or has an appropriately colored vagina I like Republican chances.

Rather than make a snarky response I’m just going to say you should hope for better things.

After last weeks kerfuffle I told myself I not to get involved in politics threads on HN but this is right up my alley.

Your response illustrates the dilemma. Yes there is a problem with race on the right but the left don’t even understand the problem. Look at your example. We believe faith matters. It is perfectly understandable that a committed Christian would want his wife to share his religion. A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his. (Well, he probably wouldn’t marry one in the first place. Is that racist?)

I want to touch on one more thing here. You said:

"Harris, which really means the bureaucratic group project that Harris would have continued"

Is that what we're voting for now? A completely interchangeable figurehead that just covers for a bureaucratic group project?

"Deep state" type conspiracy theories which would have been relegated to frothing Qanon types 20 years ago are prevalent amongst even progressive now. Perhaps this explains it. If so, nihilism is a rational response.

I was talking about the Democratic party. The appropriate comparison would be to the Republican party. I 100% agree Trump himself practices identity politics. That was the innovation that helped him beat establishment rivals in 2016. But I would argue even then there is a distinction. The Trump vision is an American civic identity as opposed to Democrat demographic identities. Complicating things is that American civic identity historically overlaps quite strongly with white identity which is convenient but they are still two separate things (even though some of his supporters might wish otherwise.) that's why he has done better with non-white voters than any Republican candidate for a long time.

"Once America denounces it's superpower status and 'leader of the free world' image..."

That's exactly what a large part of MAGA want! America First and the rest of the world be damned. I don't think that's realistic and Trump himself doesn't I don't think.

Ok Harris and Walz then. I'm not offended by "orange man" etc. which you frequently see here but keeping things at a grown up level is good too. I was specifically responding to you wondering aloud why he hasn't been replaced and why people who (in your opinion) should know better go along with him. I gave some reasons why. To recap:

1. Internationally there is currently no alternative to the US as a superpower and Trump is the leader of the US.

2. Domestically he continues to have a substantial constituency. Some of his polices actually poll better than he does.

3. The potential replacement cannot merely "resist"; they have to actually get elected and that requires having a vision that the electorate endorses.

And I would add:

4. Most (or let's say enough) Americans don't feel they are losing as you put it.

I believe you when you say you would like to apply the banhammer liberally (haha!) but so you know I come to HN for tech news. Looking at my comment history I do have a lot of political ones but it is in the hopes that I have contributed something to the conversation. Of course whether I succeeded is for the readers to decide.

While I’m recovering from your devastating critique would you care to share who you think should be president in 2028 and why.

Isn’t expecting American voters to worry about the consequences to Europe also an erosion of democracy? MAGA is just the latest incarnation of a deep isolationist trend in American politics that goes back to the WW1 era at least. The Western project was an elite one and now the elite is discredited by both the Right and Left.

As I mentioned before, I live in a blue state and most people I know voted for Harris. But I would say 9 out of 10 did because they felt they had to not because they wanted to. The governing structure of the Democratic party has not changed and still favors identity over mundane factors like competence or electability. And Europes needs are not high in the priorities of American identity politics sorry.

Of course all the headlines say Trump did this and that but the person behind this is Secretary of State (foreign minister for the tourists.) Marco Rubio. He will be low key about this right now because of Trumps ego but it will all come out later.

Rubios reasons are:

1. He is a Cuban American and his base is the Cuban exile community. They have been wanting to overthrow the Communist regime since JFK. As Cuba is utterly dependent on Venezuelan oil, this might be what finally does it.

2. He is setting himself to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. Despite the isolationist tendencies of MAGA, there are still many Republican voters for whom kicking foreign commie ass is an impressive resume item.

3. Maduro is really horrible. All the “No Kings” types wringing their hands about Fascism should be happy that an actual authoritarian dictator has met his end.

But mostly the first two.

D’oh that’s what I get for squeezing my reading and commenting between compiles. But this is worse. Americans have little reason to go to Antigua; they have no reason whatsoever to immigrate to Niger. So what was achieved here? How is US policy affected in any way? It’s a theatrical empty gesture.

I’m sure all the Americans lined up to immigrate to Antigua (“country” of the headline) will be devastated.

If they are going to cancel all visas that seems like a bit of an own goal for an economy mostly based on tourism so I doubt it will happen but they are “resisting” so they’ve got that going for them which is nice.

The article and the site it is on seem like clickbait which is not new but clickbait foreign policy is an innovation.

Re: 1. Cause and effect are backward. Imperial service was actually more meritocratic than the domestic British government of that time. Look how many names of colonialists are Scottish or Irish. The former were tossed out of their land during the Highland clearances or lost influence when the Union shifted power to London. The latter were barred from high office due to their Catholic religion. But if you had talent and ambition you could go to Africa or India (and then become wealthy and ultimately join the ruling class)

I forget where, but some person said Social Security began in 1940. As eligibility for payouts begins at age 65, a DOB in 1875 would have been the earliest valid one. Even fairly recently, quite a few people didn’t know the exact date they were born and in the 40s bureaucrats might have been more inclined to cut them some slack.

Peoples blood pressure should be up; it is a sign that outside of a small minority, Britons aren’t reproducing. This is going to have massive consequences in a generation or two.

Broligarchy versus Karenocracy; what a choice!

Amusingly, I’ve been following most of these rules for years from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Did Miss Cadwalladr forget that the bros used to be on her side? So I propose a rule 21:

21. Remind yourself “This too shall pass.”

If only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had some friendly Internet person to set them straight as they got confused between socialism and communism too.

Do the Scandinavian states control the means of production? If not, they are not socialist but social democratic.

The Indian constitution proclaims India is a socialist country making Narendra Modi the most prominent socialist in the world though somehow other socialists aren’t too happy about it.

Personally, I think if she has the talent and endurance for it, she should go for Math. She will easily be able to pivot to the other fields you mentioned and she will be prepared for quant or other financial fields etc.

On CS; my daughter just graduated this year with a degree in computer science from a fairly well regarded university. She wanted to do this from high school, partly because her parents and many family members are in the industry and also because her generation have thoroughly internalized the idea that arts/humanities are a pathway to nothing more than a career at Starbucks. They are also well aware of the student loan crisis.

Yet the number of girls who graduated with her was only about 2/3 of the number who entered the program. It’s not from lack of support. As soon as her high school realized they had a potential “Woman in STEM” they went into overdrive with activities and events to the point where I joked we should get a restraining order against her guidance counselor. Colleges also strive to be “supportive” and “welcoming”. But what I kept hearing from my daughter and her friends was that the vibe in the computer science department (sex ratio about 4:1 male) was “weird” and “creepy” None of them said they had been harassed or singled out or anything major like that, they just felt out of sorts and this was a factor in switching majors for some of them. It’s rather unfair; I’ve met some of those boys and let me just say the patriarchy is in big trouble if this is its’ future. They were unabashedly nerdy though. If your friend’s daughter is a normal American girl and not willing to learn new operating systems for fun, talk about bitcoin or find continuity errors in anime series etc. she may feel uncomfortable or lonely. Of course she can socialize outside the department in that case but it’s something to consider.

Anyway that’s my 2 cents. I wish her the best of luck.