You must log in or register to comment.
Don’t forget Fascism based on religion.
Israel and America are trying to wrestle for that one, too
Israel’s got us beat by a lot, man. In the US we have grasps for religious power (some successful) but it doesn’t describe everyone in government
Go to Utah. The Mormon church has a lot more influence on politics, than people want to admit?
Ohh I’m very aware of SLC. I’m speaking of the country as a whole, though
It’s almost…Like when everyone in government is of the same religion, it’s similar to everyone in government being of no religion at all.
There sadly are even more countries that are completely under control of religious leaders. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, … Vatican City (they even have something like their own military).
It’s insane how far the Vatican has fallen. It’s just so religious nowadays.
Bring back the Borgias! Now that was a Pope who knew how to party!
The Abraham Wars
They’re all already greased up and there’s an inflatable pool with green jello right there.
Or scams!
I think I missed the “mysticism and spirituality” period. Twenty years ago I knew India for cows, castes, and crap in the rivers.
You may be too young for Depak Chopra.
He specifically said he thought of it as being full of shit.
Never heard of ‘Eat, Pray, Love’?
Idk how the general public viewed India 40 years ago, but from my vague understanding of their modern history they’ve always been known for a cruel caste system resulting in poverty and disease, which was massaged by the English introducing more widespread transportation and education but castes and disparity still persists after several revolutions. Don’t get me wrong, the English were cruel and apathetic, but clearly the locals learned a lot from them in good and bad ways both.
I recently learned about CPI parties of India but they also ingrain religion into their politics? That sounds like one step forward two steps back. I’d love to see more Indian politics and international news in the news and politics communities on Lemmy, sounds like a lot is going on over there and I’m getting real sick of hearing about Taylor Swift’s jet and Biden’s Cookies.
Oh and also, skin whitening cream is pretty fucked imo. I saw a story awhile back where a famous light skinned actress played an ethnic minority role where they blackfaced and lived in filth, clearly something is wrong there.
Skin whitening is not unlike tanning in the west, an indication of status/wealth. In India lighter skin shows you don’t need to work outside. In the west tan skin shows you can take vacations.
And in both cases people fake it with creams and tanning salons. And it becomes so entrenched people don’t realize why they are actually doing it. Just like makeup and clothing choices.
Yes, there are problematic racial undertones…and in general is definitely fucked up…but I think it’s more complicated than just a race thing. I mean, people in the West are literally exposing themselves to cancer causing UV to fake the look of having recently taken a trip to Hawaii or whatever, which is also kinda fucked up.
Spray on tans are also frowned upon, where I’m from. But the natural production of pigment in response to sunlight isn’t nearly comparable to chemically changing tones or caking on makeup to hide your ethnicity.
I still don’t see them on the same level as attempting to change ones race as a show of wealth. People should see the beauty of their natural skin.
UV Radiation is required to produce Vitamin D, the World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 5 minutes of direct sunlight exposure a week to avoid deficiency.
Your take away from what I wrote was that I think people should never expose themselves to the sun/UV? The benefits of moderate UV exposure are completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
I just explained how they are comparable and really don’t know what else to tell you. Maybe someone else can give it a go.
Why do you need to give it a go? Why are you defending the practice of skin whitening creams?
I’m not in any way shape or form doing that. This is abundantly clear from what I wrote.
I was only comparing cosmetic skin whitening to cosmetic skin darkening, since they are completely comparable and I have already explained how.
I think you’re missing the point.
Some cultures find tanned skin to be beautiful, others find light skin to be beautiful.
In either case, wealthier people can achieve either darker or lighter skin by spending more or less time in the sun.
Poorer people who’s length of exposure to the sun is a function of their work, can emulate lighter or darker skin with various lotions and potions.
I think a more utilitarian and functional approach to beauty standards would be better for everyone. Paler is less healthy, so is being overly tanned, natural is best. People can be lighter or darker to a certain extent but their natural pigmentation has a range defined by their racial characteristics, and they should never be ashamed or disgusted of their natural tone. To say lighter or darker is more beautiful is racism, simple as.
You sound like a real idiot.
People will perceive beauty according to societal and cultural norms established over millennia.
You can’t tell someone what they ought to find beautiful.
It’s not racist, given that we’re taking about variations within a single race, not comparisons between races.
Some cultures perceive being fat or skinny differently because of the correlation of wealth which changes between impoverished nations and developed nations. Being overly fat or thin purely for cosmetic purposes is almost universally shunned by progressive movements because it is factually and objectively worse than a healthy weight. Skin Tone will be the same way. Future generations will look back and agree with me on this.
Imposing your own ideas on what other cultures ought to feel is the height of arrogance.
Similarly, it’s incredibly arrogant to presume that your own “enlightened” attitudes will be more prevalent in the future.
But the natural production of pigment in response to sunlight isn’t nearly comparable to chemically changing tones or caking on makeup to hide your ethnicity.
My asian “whitening creams” are called “brightening creams” in the West. They remove redness. They don’t chemically alter your ethnicity.
Sounds like a cope.
You sound like an a-hole. How does it feel to be bluntly communicated with?
I attacked their stance, you attacked my person. I feel very superior as a result.
Pretty sure lighter complexion in non-white countries is status symbol in the same way tanning is among white Westerners. You don’t need to work outside means you are affluent enough not to do so. Getting tanned means you are also affluent enough to go on holidays abroad to somewhere exotic.
Before the European colonisation in non-white majority countries, light skin has always been seen as status symbol. The racial aspect came later upon Western colonialism.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said.
In the west tan skin shows you can take vacations.
What? I see a dude with a tan in the middle of winter and I automatically think “he spends way to much time in tanning booths” and “that’s a lot of skin damage”. I never once thought “that guy can afford vacations”. If that’s the effect they’re going for they need better PR.
On the bright side, you need a tech tutorial, they’ve got your back.
Yeah, but it’s often in the form of a YouTube video with narration that’s not always so easy to understand. I miss written tutorials, but most of the good ones I find these days tend to come from Central/Eastern European forum posts.
Feed it to an AI explainer
Germany f*d up so bad we’re still using them as a meme after most of a century. Never go full Germany.
Don’t forget scammers!
It’s scammers all the way down.
This is insanely relevant to me right now. I left India in 2004 and I am there right now for my cousins wedding. I legit hate it everywhere I look. Love my family, but idk if I want to come back.
Hello unkill
I guess Germany after the 30’s (and maybe even after 1919), France after the whole Revolution and Napoleon thing, the UK after voting to KEKW their economy, Norway after being ruled by Sweden… The list probably goes on
Which french revolution? ;) There’s lots of people who saw and still see the whole french revolution thing as a net positive. The UK has never had a good proper revolution and it shows.
Napoleon did a lot of things, but those bad things were in line with the absolutist rulers from before the revolution, he just happened to be more successful at it. But he also did many good things during his rule. Fe, the Napoleonic code was hugely influential worldwide and a major change for the good. 2 centuries later it doesn’t hold up as well in the countries that still use the same justice system, but for it’s time, it was really good. Overall, I’d say Napoleon still has a stellar reputation, unlike India.
How was Norway worse after they last gained independence from Sweden?
never had a good proper revolution
Are you forgetting or discounting the English Revolution and Glorious Revolution?
I’m discounting that one yes. The powerful politicians that came out on top (all who were already upper class and power brokers beforehand), called it a revolution, but there was no class/societal upheaval, redistribution of wealth/land or anything else like happened in the many popular revolutions in Paris. It was just a change of government with some help from a foreign power at the end. A forced change of government or coup d’etat can alo be called a revolution, but it’s pretty obvious that it’s not the same thing as fe the 1789 revolution in Paris.
I’ll refine my previous statement: what the UK needs is a good proper popular revolution.
A lot of good came out of it in the end, but I doubt the French felt great after the battle at Waterloo and the resulting peace treaty
For France that was a great peace treaty, way better than what many French people would have expected, Talleyrand had worked wonders. After Waterloo there were many who would have wanted a complete dismemberment of France, but instead the pre Waterloo negotiations were followed and a relatively strong state was created, with all the territorial gains of Louis 14 left intact.
That peace was also far better for French people than Napoleon’s endless large scale wars of the prior 15 years. It’s that massive death toll that we should blame Napoleon for, not the treaty of Vienna. And after a bit of a respite, the french did kick out the Bourbons again, so that peace did work out ok for France. It was easily a far better peace than the “peace” of Versailles after WW1.
Yeah I guess you’re right that it came out about as well as it possibly could for France. I still feel there was a significant bit of humiliation at play for the great power that France was at the time, but then again it took a coalition to get there and this was an army of a country torn between monarchists and republicans.
The UK had to murder his king to get a parliament though :D and tbh the french revolution was a great moment, but also a hugely violent one, and the people did not prevail. The liberals did.
It wasn’t murder though, murder implies criminal wrong doing.
Isn’t regicide against the law? :D
Still a net positive. Yes, liberals suck, but so does the aristocracy.
How did Norway’s “PR” fall after independence?
That just touches on leadership issues, not the people. So I don’t think it is valid in this context.
I dunno I think Nazi Germany says a lot about everyone that was there I reckon.
It’s still a leadership issue and not a people issue. I can see why someone would want to relate the two, but it’s not a just comparison on this case.
How did France’s PR fall after the revolution?
4chan is gonna know the world through the perspective of an average 4chan user.
Rapists and shit being India’s image is far, far from being exclusive to anons on 4chan…
I unfortunately have to agree on the rapists front because of the impotent fucks sitting in the parliament sucking each other on religion, but the shitting part has gotten considerably better in my region and in India overall, though.
It may have gotten better but the image is going to take quite some time to be changed, unfortunately
It’s good that the conditions become better, though
11% still seems really high. In a crowd of 100 people, 11 are going to be pooping in front of you.
It’s relative improvement, it might seem really high to people in the west but for us it’s been quite a difference.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Also the land of abhorrent javascript horrors.
Internet exposed that every or almost every country is a class system with pedo rapists in charge.
The shit river is a cherry but all countries are a shit pie.
In southern US there people without plumbing or other towns have poluted water piped to low peasants.
So rich, so powerful…
The population of people in the US with no / seriously tainted water is a blip compared to the population on the yamuna or ganges rivers.
It’s a disservice to those folks to even remotely compare their experience to those in north America.
Is that because India has the highest population or its high even as a percentage?
I specified population of people in <country>
Which can be read as a percent.
Was unsure
Sorry to break it to you bud, but many countries are not shit.
Yeah you are just flat out incorrect :(
How hurt is u, boy?
Thought to myself “San Francisco isnt a country”
Never forget the Designated Shitting Streets
mysticism and spirituality
You mean scammers like Sadhguru and Deepak Chopra?
America has been full of New Thought/LoA grifters like these too: Neville Goddard, Napoleon Hill, Joseph Murphy, to name a few.
With the exception of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Islam is currently responsible for a majority of the war happening in the world and has been for the last two decades.
The world would be a better place without Islam.
Did you comment on the wrong post? What does Islam have to do with OP?
Current Indian government is full of Hindu ethnofasicists that are deeply anti-islam.
Plenty of people will grab literally any opportunity and quite a few non-opportunities to rant. I’m a freaking edgelord atheist myself, but some of it is just embarrassing.
Probably a Hindu nationalist
It’s not the muslms who lynch people transporting cows now, is it?
In places destabilized by colonialists…
Bring back the Ottoman and the Mughal empires!
Most countries got a lot more stable under colonialism. Its only after they left they went back to destability and genocide.
Yeah, things are pretty stable when you ruthlessly crush dissent
Are we talking about the multitudes of manufactured draughts?
Or the genocide of the colonised population?
Fuck right off with colonial apologism. Colonisers have built their wealth, by exploiting countries, deepening existing social fractures, and leaving the countries worse than they found them in most aspects. The technical growth or industrialisation that the colonising powers purport to have shared (such as trains), was largely possible on the backs of the economic leverage they enjoyed on the back of the excessive taxation of the colonies[1]. The Indian region for all it’s social issues, was a contributor to about 25% world’s GDP before the stabilising force of the various colonisers arrived. In 1947, that was 2%.
Learn your history before you talk out of your ass.
The industrial revolution really had a huge affect on gdp around the world. That solved the issues of famine within india. But will probably lead to more with climate change now.
My god man, just sign up for some history classes at your nearest university. Or maybe just listen to some podcast or something. This is just horribly insensitive, and I don’t even think you know why it is so.
The gdp of the west exploded because of the industrial revolution. To claim that wasn’t the largest force for changes in gdp is madness. It separated gdp so directly from labour that gdp stopped being so heavily related to population.
That looks like Congo. Lots of colonial powers were against what happened in the Congo. Pretty sure that let to some sort of convention.
Lots of bad shit happened but we was talking stability. Bad shit happened before and after also.
You can’t stabilise a country by exploiting them.
The Colonialism-defending ghoul has logged on
I think that’s just because Hindus have been poor in history. Give them power and they’ll show they’re just a cosmetic difference away from Islam. You remember the murder on live TV? Do you know what the murderers chanted after shooting? Jai Shree Ram is just the new Allah Akbar.
Hindutva shithead.
hahhahahhahahahahahhahaha. God that’s one hell of a warped perspective.
Geez man have you studied history and geopooitics at all?
You mean because certain countries (The US) keeps starting wars against muslims??? Do you also blame jews for the second world war?
America is responsible for a good few as well.
