Interesting to witness societal decay in real time.

Nazism is not a culture, it’s a political ideology that seeks to drag us back into the stone age.

No political ideology “deserves” to exist.

We hold individuals accountable for their actions according to the rule of law. That applies to everyone including them.

It’s easy to fall for reductive dualisms as youve presented.

I stand for upholding the rule of law and inalienable human rights and do not accept Nazi / genocidal rhetoric.

Feel free to criticize these specific people as everyone absolutely should. But if you’re going to say a culture doesn’t “deserve to exist” because you think it “spawned” them, you better be able to name that culture so we know where your true intentions lie.

The abstraction is intentional because you know if you were specific your position becomes indefensible.

Oh you’re back. Theres not much more to say except that I wish you luck on your journey to human decency, if thats the path you decide to choose.

He did though, which is why his comment was removed. Saying a culture “doesn’t deserve to exist” is neo Nazi rhetoric. He’s free to criticize these specific people, advocating for ethnic cleansing is indefensible though. Of course when asked to define the culture he deemed unworthy of existence, he made a run for it.

Hey I made a fascist run away today, not bad.

Ok let’s be precise with our language. What culture are you referring to? Do you have a name for it?

It simply is indistinguishable from fascism because ultimately the fascists decided which cultures were problematic, who was a part of them and therefore who “deserved” to be exterminated.

Your criticism alone isn’t what likens your view to fascism, its the language you chose, which implies a disregard for inalienable human rights that does.

Do you, the one who apparently decides which cultures are worthy and which are not, get to decide how a culture is defined and who is a part of it?

Who is a part of it in this case? Who would you like to erase? People that look like them, speak like them, worship like them?

We punish individuals for their actions according to the rule of law.

You may want to go back to a time when we judge individuals based on the actions of those we perceive to be similar to them. I do not.

I don’t know which culture youve come from to arrive at this worldview, but as problematic and regressive as it is, I still acknowledge your personhood / humanity. I seek not to erase it (despite its flaws) nor do I deem you or anyone “spawned” from it to be unworthy of existance. People, communities and cultures are often indiscrete and in a constant state of adaptation. This type of rhetoric belongs in an era that should be left behind.

Yours is the language that seeks to enable genocide. It normalizes the idea of punishing the many for the actions of the few based on vague, perceived similarities. Criticize all you want but be mindful of the words you choose.

The framing of whether a culture “deserves” to exist was a justification to pursue the extermination of Jewish and Roma people in fascist Germany, as one example. From that and other similar acts of destruction in the name of cleansing or purity came a new world order with the concept of inalienable human rights.

When you speak on the erasure of a culture, which is often an abstract set of ideas around which clear boundaries can rarely be drawn, you justify a collective punishment that is antithetical to this foundational idea.

Individuals should be held accountable for their actions according to the rule of law.

Saying that a culture doesn’t deserve to exist undermines the idea of inalienable human rights, normalizes ethnic cleansing and ultimately takes us back to a much darker period of human history.

I may not have lived through world war 2, but I am not keen on unlearning the lessons that were learned from it.

Yeah it’s easy to think that but I’d be wary of embracing that level of extremism. Colonial powers used similar arguments to justify the extermination of peoples around the world for centuries ie. “the civilizing mission”. Your framing is also indistinguishable from core frameworks within facism.

I agree with your anger but not with your worldview. People and cultures adapt over time, and I’d sooner do what I can to influence change in a culture for the better, before questioning whether one “deserves” human rights. But… that’s just my culture. Let’s hope it deserves to exist 🤞.

The Kailasa temple was a multi generational effort over more than a 100 years. It was typically a family of artisans across generations.

The Bengal famine was not even the largest British engineered famine in India.

Britain has a borderline unfixable economy - according to expert economists - and is about to put the final nail in the coffin by electing Reform so perhaps what goes around comes around.

Looking at recent history, some have more than others and have the riches to show for the destruction they engaged in.

Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?

Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

With regard to Bengal and India as a whole:

British policy resulted in the death of 100 million people during the Raj. The Bengal famine is just one example and was not even the most deadly.

In Bengal:

• Fearing a Japanese invasion through Burma, the British enacted a scorched-earth policy in coastal Bengal. They confiscated or destroyed tens of thousands of boats, bicycles, and carts (the lifeblood of the local transport and fishing economy) and seized rice stocks so the Japanese couldn’t use them. This completely destroyed the rural economy.

• Stockpiled food strictly to feed military troops, civil servants, and industrial defense workers in Calcutta. Rural peasants were entirely abandoned to the market.

• To pay for the war, the British printed massive amounts of paper currency in India. This caused the price of rice to skyrocket by up to 600%, completely pricing out rural laborers.

• When the scale of the famine became global news, other countries offered to help. Canada offered to send ships loaded with 100,000 tons of emergency wheat. The United States also offered food aid. Churchill’s government turned them down, refusing to provide or allow the shipping vessels required to transport the grain to India.

• To protect Britain’s international reputation during World War II, the British colonial government heavily censored the Indian press. They banned newspapers from using the word “famine” or publishing photographs of the skeletal bodies lining the streets. It wasn’t until a British editor of an English-language newspaper in Calcutta broke ranks and published gruesome photographs that the British public—and the world—realized the scale of the horror.

When British officials in Bengal like Leo Amery petitioned Churchill for aid he responded with:

• Stating it was the fault of Bengalis for breeding like rabbits.

• Asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.

• Stating that he “hated Indians” as they are a “beastly people with a beastly religion”

To which Amery replied: "I am by no means sure whether on this subject [India] Winston is really quite sane… I told him that I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s."

Churchill, one of the most revered figures in the Anglosphere, celebrated the export of food away from people who were starving. He would respond to questions on it mockingly. In India’s case he took a type of joy in it since he hated people who weren’t white. Was a different time sure, but he was particularly vile when it came to this.

To be fair there are a lot of adults like this too.

It was more consistent back in the day, now they’ve lowered the max heat substantially. In the 90s if you were Desi and asked for proper spicy it was guaranteed attempted manslaughter and I miss the dopamine hit of that near death experience. Still can do it at home but there’s something nice about experiencing it more formally.

You know what I was just going to accept capitalism as is for the rest of my life but now I’m a radical leftist. Whoever made this meme took it just a step too far.

Absolutely. Napolean and trade barriers had an important role in that evolution

During the Napoleonic Wars, the British Royal Navy blockaded France, cutting off all Caribbean cane sugar. The price of sugar loaf skyrocketed. Facing a riotous, sugar-deprived public, Napoleon poured state funding into beet research. ​He ordered thousands of acres to be planted and offered massive prizes to scientists who could refine the process. By the time the blockade lifted, the industry was advanced enough to compete with cane on a price-per-pound basis.

It’s remarkable how much of human history (if not all of it) is adapting to the circumstances around us.