all 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 168 points 3 months ago (17 children)

Ultra-conservative Indians man. They're a certain type of fucked up.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (14 children)

    Exactly, this kind of narrative is propaganda intended to make rape victims give up resistance.

    In some regards India is several centuries decades behind most of the rest of the world. Especially with regards to women's rights. Though if I recall correctly forcing a victim to marry her rapist is also a Christian/Jewish thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    That affords people a level of planning I think is overly charitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I know it goes against the circlejerk in some progressive communities, but most rich conservative media owners did not get to their position by lacking brainpower, their shortcomings tend to be more in the morals and/or empathy regions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I just think generally this kind of "propaganda" is produced because it reflects a well-entrenched view people genuinely hold. It's like asserting that minstrel shows were produced as propaganda to keep black people subjugated by making people think black people are inferior. I think it's much simpler than that - the people who commissioned such things were racist, so they made shows which depicted black people poorly. That had the effect of perpetuating racism, but it's a stretch to say the perpetuation of racism was the motivation, rather than the enactment of racism.

    Same here, as I see it. The people who make such things are misogynists who believe in misogynist practices, so they make films which reflect those practices. I don't see where there's evidence for a conscious choice to do more than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. As far as I know minstrel shows were mostly small groups making the money they got from their performance, but movies like the one in this post are funded by multi-million dollar media companies that have a large say in what kind of movies will be made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I really had in mind minstrel shows on in the 20th century on TV. But if you prefer, I think it still applies to most situations which seem to be entrenching any view, whether that view is hateful or indeed positive. We don't think of someone making a movie whose central message is about the virtue of kindness as being "propaganda" - it's just people putting their own values into a story. So too if the central message is negative.

    If you want to infer a more purposeful, self-conscious motivation, you need more to go on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Though if I recall correctly forcing a victim to marry her rapist is also a Christian/Jewish thing.

    Wat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I looked it up for you.

    If a man finds a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and sleeps with her, and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife, because he has violated her. He may never divorce her as long as he lives.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 59 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 52 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This is kind of something that actually happens (or at least used to happen) in India.

    If a man rapes a woman, people say that he must marry the woman, because "her honour is ruined" or something, and nobody else will accept her as a wife.

    I'm pretty sure this still happens in rural areas, where panchayat is the judge and jury.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 42 points 3 months ago

    tragically everything except the last part happens quite regularly in certain countries

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (19 children)

    Isn't this also a rule in the bible?

    Eta: yup

    Deut. 22:28-29

    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,Β he shall pay her father fifty shekelsΒ of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    The "and they are discovered" is extra icing on this shit cake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    "God sees everything."
    "Nah, doesn't count."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

    He exists all the time, ahead of time. I am sure He would not be micromanaging each individual creation like Jeff Bezos micromanages his piss breaks. Regardless, as per my other reply, the quote doesn't count as all standards have been overruled by the new testament. Before you ask why there are new/old testaments despite "existing all the time", I say He just fast forwarded then saw what happened and pushed the Jesus update to fix it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    How do you interpret Matthew 5:17 - 5:18 regarding the Jesus update? Isn't this Jesus saying that the old testament still stands?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    It says "fullfill". "I came here not to abolish" quite literally means that the old testament were to still be considered part of the Christian bible and kept for reference. It's a bit difficult for me to define "fullfill", although the "New Living Translation" (which I found here) is, in my opinion, more clear on it with "accomplish their purpose". "Purpose" refers to the one described in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    You forgot the rest.

    18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[b] one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Jesus is explicitly speaking on the law and prophets, meaning the Torah and Nevi'im, basically the entire old testament. He said not a single stroke of a letter will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away, meaning FOREVER or until end times when a new heaven is created on earth, depending on your interpretation.

    Seeing as earth is still here, all has not been accomplished.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Oh come on, we could be debating here all day, that's why there are multiple branches of Christianity in the first place.

    Also, correct, not a single stroke of a letter "passed". We were just looking at translations of these strokes of letters. Doesn't mean all of them are still in effect.

    Another way to think of it. There are two time conditions specified, "until heaven and earth pass away" and "until all is accomplished". One could assume the first was just filler and second refers to when Jesus finishes teaching everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    multiple branches of Christianity

    That's a good point. It's weird that the divine word of God is so nebulous as to spawn 40,000 denominations that all think the others have it wrong.

    assume the first was just filler

    The Bible is really easy to interpret when you just ignore the stuff you don't like. Like the original verse condoning rape. But even if we accept that the old law doesn't apply anymore, it did at one point, meaning God (and therefore Jesus) condoned rape. If you believe God is unchanging, you have to believe he still thinks rape is permissible as long as you marry the victim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    40,000 denominations that all think the others have it wrong

    Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    Matthew 18:18. New living translation to the rescue again:

    I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.


    assume the first was just filler

    The Bible is really easy to interpret when you just ignore the stuff you don't like.

    Okay, if you interpret the first as something else (like until you don't see heaven and earth so you died, or something else entirely), the other point still stands. I just claimed "another way to think of it", meaning alternative.


    If you believe God is unchanging (...) God (and therefore Jesus) condoned rape

    Again, multiple ways to go here. I actually personally agree with both here.

    Simple one, lots of lines from the book initially quoted follow the structure of "sin - punishment", which implies marrying the victim was meant to be punishment which was then weaponized by the evil.

    Now on the extent of God's immutability: He can't age, and is always omni[potent/present/scient], sure, but He made humans in His own image, and humans change all the time. Everything not specified otherwise is commonly assumed to be equal between humans and God. He is usually depicted having arms and legs since humans have those and it was not specified that He doesn't. And I, as one of the creations in His image, would consider myself quite "changed" compared to last year or even 3 or so months ago. Don't see how God couldn't change His opinion on the matter, even despite the modern social construct for "person" often including opinions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I mean if you want to agree God can change his mind that entails that he can't possibly be all-knowing. Changing your mind generally requires new information that you didn't know before. But that's irrelevant because numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 both say God can't change his mind.

    In the context of a group of camel herders assigning human characteristics to a deity to make it more understandable, it lines up perfectly. In the context of an almighty God handing down his Word to humans, it's contradictory.

    On a less serious note, if we're made in his image, does he have a dick n balls? If so, what for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    23:19

    Which book?

    1 Samuel 15:29

    I require context

    27As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. 28Samuel said to him, β€œThe Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors - to one better than you. 29He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

    He won't change His mind in that regard, yes. If interpreted differently, it would be contradicting itself pretty much immediately. Jonah 3:10:

    When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.


    does he have a dick n balls?

    The real answer is that we don't know exactly. Forgot which branches, but He is often depicted as a father in various ways, including as Maria's partner who gave birth to Jesus. Which implies that yes, He does have a dick n balls. Although no actual fucking is described, it's just poof and pregnant. And the literal first few chapters of Genesis say that he explicitly made humans breed, which implies that He himself doesn't have to.

    This discussion isn't too productive. I am not a door to door converter, would assume neither are you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Which book?

    I said numbers. The book of numbers.

    [19] God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

    And as you pointed out, God does not do everything he says, meaning he either changes his mind (which the inspired word of gawd says he does not) or he lies to people (which is evidently contrary to his nature). Go ahead and read the rest if you want, verse 16 makes it explicit that God actually spoke these words directly to balaam.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Correct. However, old testament. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    What argument? It's literally just a bible verse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Well, people can reasonably believe it is an argument either against the bible or for what is said in the quote.

    Although my bad for initially assuming it's the Christian and not Jewish bible they are talking about. I don't have any comment in the latter case, I haven't researched that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [+] [S] 50 points 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago

    "If a girl losing virginity before marriage and marrying someone else is normal, then why not a girl falling in love with someone who raped her"

    The first thing that comes to mind is because women are fucking human beings and not objects whose value is inversely proportional to how much dick she's taken.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 31 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    I'm Pakistani. The subcontinent is super conservative. You have to remember the British rules over us for centuries and all our grandparents want to do is to imitate them.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Pretty sure the rape marry thing and even forced child marriages predated the British.

    Not that the British weren't complete evil shits, but I don't think this one is on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Ah the good ol' "everything is the fault of colonizers" deflection. Also it was not even a century that the area that is now Pakistan was ruled by British Empire - 98 years to be exact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Did you even read my comment? I didn't blame the British (tho they deserve a ton of blame). I was criticizing my grandparents generation for not having enough outrage. My grandparents were born in India and had to leave during Partition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Nah man I understood your comment and you do defer responsibility to "british ruling us for centuries and old people trying to imitate them" as if rape was not a big problem in the region for hundreds of years. I hate colonizers as much as anyone else but when it comes to this issue it's not that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago*
    [–] 23 points 3 months ago

    How I despise all those backwards inbred rednecks all around the world, no matter the country.

    If we could just eradicate religion and replace it with education, that would be a start...

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Imagine a woman so good she throws acid on her own face to save you the time and expense

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Then she locks them in a crate and buries them alive, right? Right!?

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago*
    1. It was a different time…

    /s if not obvious

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    I guess most families are similar after all.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, India has some cultural issues, to say the least. Very, very strange place.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Of course, it is classified as "Romance"...

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It seems likely you would enjoy Lost Girls and Love Hotels.

  • source