I was having an interesting discussion yesterday, which, being unpalatable to the person with whom I was discussing, led to me being blocked by her on Twitter. That, this discussion is still on her mind can be seen from this single tweet. As is my practice, I will shade out all the names except mine.
And what’s the necessity to put this as an article? There are two main reasons
- Intellectual dishonesty of tagging a person whom you have blocked and selectively quoting him
So how do these discussions go, generally?
They post something, you counter them, and when you are winning the argument, simply block. No. There is no acceptance of defeat. Just block.
Now, what was this all about?
The discussion was all about extolling the virtues of having non-vegetarian food. I will be giving the screenshots on and off, but this is the general direction of the discussion –
X: West is nutritious because they eat non-vegetarian. Let’s not impose vegetarianism on our kids.
Myself: Somalia, Pakistan and South Sudan have more access to non-vegetarian than India. Does that make their children more healthy than Indian?
X: Wanting to eat vs not being able to eat vs not allowed to eat. India is all about not being able to eat and not allowed to eat.
Myself: How have you decided that a majority of Indians eat meat? Can you get me statistics on these parameters?
X: There are NIN and other reports which say meat is better.
Myself: Consider the below NIN report. Meat is not mandatory. Where do we stand, then?
There is one pet peeve. X is angry Akshaya Patra refused to include eggs into it’s menu.
The desperation to prove the validity of the argument.
And then, the eventuality. Notice, the sentence starts with lower case.
An evangelist this time, who decided to join the discussion.
My original tweet: Vegetarians get their energy from dal and rice
X: Who produces them? Those who produce give these better quality things to others to eat
Myself: Not all of them are non vegetarian. There are vegetarian farmers and diary farmers as well. Whether he is a farmer or a teacher, everyone has his role to play.
And the atrocity narrative starts.
X: There is no division of labour. What we have is lack of dignity and discrimination. Check with the producers if you want to know more.(and a parallel track over communism).
Myself: Caste atrocity, what you want to call is present in all the religions, whatever it is.
X: There are 3 rape attempts against Dalit women already in India.
Myself: Which religion Dalits are they? And rape happened because of caste or just that you included caste into that?
X shares a case of Devadasi exploitation
I share a case of exploitation of nuns. Technically, they are no different than any Devadasi. And then, I share the troubles Dalit priests are facing in church.
X is unhinged.
X: But, why are you bringing religion into this?
Myself: The reality is you don’t want to accept caste is a problem in every religion. Try to give a holistic solution, don’t look for caste or religion into this. The two main reasons for reconversion from christianity into Hinduism is Tithe and Caste atrocities.
The only sensible thing in the whole discussion was this little bit.
This is the outcome of the discussion
- Is non-vegetarian food mandatory? No
- Is govt able to address the nutritional issues with vegetarian food in community meals? Yes
- Is a private individual banned from eating food of his choice(within legal permits)? No
- Is caste unique to Hinduism? No
- Is there caste hierarchy and atrocity in other religions? Yes
These sort of narratives commonly fail due to two reasons –
- When you are armed with data and are ready to challenge
- When the problems which are projected as unique to Hinduism are commonly seen in other religions as well.
I have just replied Brahmins exist even in Christianity.
Context: Origin of Caste System in India(linking to an older tweet thread)