MisterrSingh

I know, I know, but it's quite a famous quote from a comedy show that I'm a huge fan of. The presenter in the sketch thinks that Good AIDS is stuff where transmission occurs during drug taking or a botched blood transfusion, whereas Bad AIDS occurs from gay sex.

Yes, I think so.

??

Would you turn gay if there wasn't any women around?

Why are you shouting? Also, what does female foeticide have to do with buggery? I never knew developing homosexual inclinations was a choice when women are thin on the ground.

You're making two major mistakes: 1. You're being unnecessarily vindictive. 2. You seem to think there's an OFF valve to Islam that Sikhs can turn just at the right moment once it's served our purpose. You realise that's a fantasy, right?

Good AIDS, then. As long as it's not Bad AIDS from bum stuff.

I disagree. Allowing a fire to spread so that it destroys one of your deadliest enemies may seem like a good idea in the short-term, but never forget that the fire won't stop burning until it's also destroyed YOU. Do you really want to empower Islam to the point that it dominates in India? To me, that's suicide. A slower suicide compared to death by Hinduism, but suicide nonetheless.

The past couple of pages to any sane person is reasoned, psychological observation. To a few others it's hate speech. ?

It's actually a lot more of a pertinent strategy for a minority group (surrounded by larger, more powerful entities) who neither has the numbers nor the reach to physically affect matters against its more imposing competitors. The Hindus are a majority; for them it's just state-craft when directed against Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, etc. The true problem for them is Islam. If Sikhs behaved and conducted themselves with Jewish tenacity as exemplified by the rabbi's quote, we'd make it our policy to pit Hindus against the Muslims in India. The ensuing chaos would clear a path for us to conduct our own actions that will benefit our cause. But that'll never happen. Have you seen our religious and political leadership? Rowdy, corrupt old men who can barely see into the end of the next week nevermind 10 or 20 years into the future. I think that's what Maskin Ji meant when he referred to us a bholi quom. I'd go as far to say it's bholi, with a dash of stupidity and cowardice. Our religious ethos is also a factor. Behaving with honour and integrity is central to our philosophy. Unfortunately, we seem to develop a spiritual conscience when dealing with our enemy, but nothing of the sort amongst ourselves. Are we afraid of the outsider but intolerant of our own?

Seems obvious, doesn't it, but for our guys who consider themselves "smart" and clued up, what you've stated above is a total mystery. Which is why they get frigged over, hoping their kids behave themselves without taking active measures to ensure they behave themselves. But, hey, as long as the money keeps rolling in and the soul-destroying consumerist lifestyle rolls on unabated, then they don't really care... until something bad happens.

If the cat and dog are made to hate each other, then the mouse is safe. That's a well-known quote from Jewish Rabbi Bronstein. Could you ever imagine Sikhs devising such a methodology for their own preservation? Pitting two separate groups against each other so that neither of them have the time or the inclination to direct their attention to the third party lurking nearby that's actually fomenting the unrest. It's genius.

No, you're wrong. ? "extremely prejudiced" = presenting information that contradicts your narrative. That makes me evil. Women! ??

The children should never be made to suffer. They're blameless. Yes, in some situations they're used as pawns between the parents and even the state, but if there's none of that going and the father just can't be bothered to maintain a relationship with the kid, then that's just not on. A child needs a father.

I agree. Unless someone's studying STEM subjects (Science, Tech, Engineering, Maths), Law, and Medicine, university is a red herring. The vast majority of the university educated in the West would've been better served going to vocational school. Elevating higher education was designed to be a progressive, "emancipatory" act for bettering society and levelling the field (as these things tend to be lauded when they're foisted upon the population), but it's created a strange yet influential subset of people who know very little but regard themselves very highly because of the framed certificate hanging on their wall, yet these same people are paid 'enough' to lend them the belief that they're doing better in life than most.

It's another one of those western institutions that the culture loves to fetishize as an essential part of life that mustn't be avoided. You know why they do that, don't you? So young, impressionable minds don't dare miss out on the indoctrination and the years of debt, lol.

Yes and No. "Yes" vs other longer established religions and ideologies. "No" amongst ourselves. We also need to acknowledge the traitorous streak in our people.

Of course. Our friend Sat seems to be suggesting the majority of women are chomping at the bit to marry under their pay bracket, and that's so untrue. Even in the lower echelons of our white-collar educated demographic, a female business & marketing graduate earning £26,000 would turn her nose up at a guy who's gone to trade school and bringing in £25,000 doing carpentry or similar work. It's not just the money, which in the example I've given is just a grand, but the fact that she thinks, "I've gone to university; he's "just" a manual worker without a degree." However, the same guy grafts hard and starts his own business. After a few years, he's clearing £50,000+ while office girl has gained a stone or two (?) but hasn't managed to break through the £30,000 barrier. Now she thinks, "That guy was actually okay." He could've become a total scumbag during that time, lmao, but that £25,000+ leap in earnings has suddenly made him more desirable. In reality that's how the world spins on its axis. The Hollywood-ised fantasy being promoted by Sat is partially true but it skips and ignores a few essential and unavoidable truths that some ladies would rather not have illuminated about their fellow woman.

And I'm telling you that there are women out there who certainly DO care about those things. The noble minority you refer to have arrived at their magnanimous state of mind because they have NO choice in the matter. Their hand has been forced through circumstances of their own making. Accordingly, they must either accept a lower status male in order to stave off loneliness, or start buying cats. ?

No, my friend, I'm just an observer of the absurdities and foibles of human nature.

When someone prefaces their argument with "I'm not trying to be..." it's usually a precursor to them wanting to convey the exact opposite sentiment they're at pains not to state outright. The "incels" comments sounds very Reddit-ish. A classic shaming tactic. Are you a Redditor? You smell like a Redditor. Nobody likes Redditors. People are "so obsessed" with what women are doing for many reasons, and it's something that's proving to be a worldwide phenomena amongst groups that wish to retain their values, traditions, and their identities in the face of overwhelming odds being espoused for many decades by certain groups who wish for the world to be populated by mutt-like, rudderless, confused beings without roots and identities. The "alpha male" argument is an enticing one, and I admit I myself was actually quite convinced by its merits for a few years, but when I began delving into it from a different angle, I found myself being repulsed by the very idea of it. In essence, it transfers the entire burden of the relational transaction (including the initial pursuit) between a man and a woman onto the shoulders of the man while entirely bypassing the merits (or not) of the female in question; in other words, the male is encouraged to ignore the fact of whether the woman is WORTH pursuing; we're encouraged not to analyse her qualities and her merits, but just accept her for breathing. Apparently, that's enough. This "ideal" of woman is packaged as perfection, and if you fail to entice such a female, it's because there's some serious deficiency in your masculinity. What if a masculine, strong-willed man doesn't want a loose-moralled, shallow harlot? Does that make him a beta male? I agree, but one can obtain a fairly accurate guestimate from such indicators. Wonderful sentiments, and again I agree to a certain extent, but in the case of the Sikh women you're passionately defending it's simply not as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be. This "moving on" you describe is usually something that's isn't a result of personal growth and introspection. It's a desperate, final move resulting from a debilitating fear; fear of being discovered, or fear of being labelled, or a general dread of being having done wrong. It's usually the last roll of the dice in an attempt to conceal an act (or a sequence of acts) that's spiralled out of control. Her "settling down" is not through choice, for if it were, she would choose to settle down with the type of companions to whom she granted access to her... innermost sanctum, lol. This "settling" is exactly that: it's settling for second best in her mind at least. The fun, rollercoaster ride of hedonism and degeneracy is over, and suddenly that empty, hollow, galling sensation gnawing away at her conscience screams at her to turn over a new leaf either through heartbreak or because she realises she was fed a lie. Then, miraculously, she finds God! Then she begins quoting out-of-context Guru Nanak quotes, and begins lecturing Sikhs on religious directives. What a transformation! A truly introspective person would arrest their fall BEFORE hurtling over the cliff. Sikh females tend to realise the direness of their situation only once they've launched themselves off the cliff, and they're sprawled on the rocks miles below. Maybe not in your family or social circle, but I assure you they do exist. Maybe look harder, and not assume your personal situation is the standard? Overall, I have HUGE problems with Sikh males, too. I'm not one for double standards. I believe if Sikh males want the "best" Sikh female, they must exhibit the behaviour and decorum they seek in a female companion. I have nothing but contempt for the contemporary Western Punjabi or culturally Sikh male. I'd be more than happy to contribute my opinions on that subject if someone were to open a thread on that particular topic.

Calm down, Singh. This isn't an anti-black or anti-anyone else issue. It's something that we as community need to tackle. Outsiders are always going to resort to opportunism when issues like these are rampant amongst our own. That's tribalism for you.

I'm not putting anybody into categories. I'm acknowledging a reality in certain cases. You're arguing those exceptions DON'T exist at all. You're denying truths because they make you uncomfortable, and shine a light on certain issues you don't want to see illuminated. Again, where's Bibi Nanaki come from in this scenario? And Mai Bhago? Were they the norm or the exception to the rule? Am I, as a normal guy without divine heritage, making my way in the world, supposed to believe every woman is a latent Bibi Nanaki or Mai Bhago, and therefore worthy of the same treatment? Would I treat every male as if they were Bhai Gurdas or Baba Bidhi Chand? You're hilarious.

No, I'm not. Your anecdotal accounts are about as valid as mine, yet the wider assessment on this subject view minus any emotional prejudice you possess contradicts your view on this issue. And people aren't Guru Nanak so don't even go there with that bukwaas.

I'd say the family ballsed it up when it became acceptable in that household for their daughter to wear a skirt that barely covers her groin. But it's not one huge moment that signals a shift; it's an accumulation of many smaller, incremental moments that lead to that big bang, which in this case is the absolute jaloos that's been carried out in the public gaze. The sevadaars of Sikh organisations should perform their due diligence before leaping into action on-camera, and lending their support to these families. Even the mere presence of such an organisation implicitly suggests a certain narrative is at play, which in this case has been proven to be untrue.