So at the beginning of this thread I really did feel guilt for listening to JP but now I actually see where he was coming from and why he felt the need to talk about every single minisclue topic.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the feeling that the underlying idea here is that “it is okay to lie a bit and shut up certain voices because we as a human race in general lack the tools to reduce inequality and to get back at people who abuse power”. I think the main difference in JPs view is that he would argue that with all of its flaws, this is still one of the best systems so far, and dismantling it blindly will most likely just gets everyone end up in a worse place, similarly to socialism.
So Rowling made the case that women in developing countries need additional care regarding hygene because of menstruation cycles. She then gets called a transphobe because this statement implies that trans women do not have periods. This is okay, because others can feel bad about not what she ever said or meant, but what others might mean about what she might have said?
I am sorry to hear that. I still don’t see how attacking these people would fix any of this. If you want to attack someone why not actually call out transphobes?
This is horrible! Thank you for pointing this out, I now have a better idea about where you are coming from. Again, I still don’t think that calling people nazis would fix this. Telling the truth would. Calling out the disrepancies between the teachings and the words of these leaders and showing an example will slowly prevail. Having a community like this where the practicioners can look up at the silla of the monks will discredit these false gurus.
Can you provide me with a list of trans people who commited suicide because they were too sensitive to read Rowling’s statement? If Rowling can take criticizm as a women, howcome trans women can’t? It is hard to be part of any minority, in fact there is research about how people tend to come out more only if they have the ecological background to do so, because they could get banished from their families for being gay and starve to death alone. However, bullying people for saying facts that might hurt the feelings of hypothetical homogenous groups is just nonsense.
This is it! You know who thought there is a small group of rich white people, who got their wealth through exploitation of others and did not deserve their places in society, therefor it is okay to destroy them? I sure hope these hípothetical “white cis patriarchical leaders” of yours aren’t of jewish origin.
Indeed. His point is that it’s still the best we have, other hierarchies only generated inequality, capitalism generates both inequality and wealth. He also stretches that the reason that some leftist want to break them down is not because they actually want to make a better system, but because they are full of resentment and just want to take revenge on masses. For instance on every man because of their hatred towards their fathers.
I disagree with some of the statements here on how Buddhism is always so progressive and the West should be ashamed of itself in general. We are on a forum that was partly built on the technology, generosity and extra wealth of westerners who have the free time and luxury to discuss politics because they also have the right to vote for their leaders. Can anyone please show me a democratic buddhist country? One where their narcissistic king didn’t have the good karma to be born omnipotent and use this power to rape women? And yes, I know that Buthan is going for the happiest country award, but I find it strange how that pursuit of happiness was preceeded by some ethnic cleansing Ethnic cleansing in Bhutan - Wikipedia