You have a point. :-)

The problem is, while you fight windmills because it's fun, there are others who will see you doing so and think windmills are things that should actually be fought against, because windmills are not windmills, but dragons. Very soon, a trend will have started. Actually, the trend has started[^].

A few months ago, someone accused you of being a sexist, because you only posted misogynist jokes, apparently. Today, I am accusing you of being a sexist, because you only post jokes that are misandrist in nature. You can't win! ;P

Sigh. This is going on and on, longer than I expected. This would be my last reply in this thread, and after that, I am done with you.

smaaaart wrote:

Pakis

Keith Barrow wrote:

:WTF:

What??? Pakistan is often called "Pak" for short (Pakis themselves do it), and their nationals Pakis. I don't know what's "WTF" about it, or racist, or whatever.

Keith Barrow wrote:

So, in fact, you ackowledge that they don't "bring it up most of the time."

So you insist "most of the time" means "every single day?" Are you always this stubborn, or just slow? Just a few days ago, there was a talk show on some Pak news channel where they were talking to an Indian politician about whether a terrorist who was involved in the 26/11 bombing should be handed over to the Indian authorities. And they (the Pakis) still managed to bring Kashmir into it, even though the topic had nothing to do with Kashmir at all. But of course you didn't see that show, and you don't know about many such incidents. And of course you won't find such things on a news site. Because these things are not talked about in NEWS. They are talked about in live shows, debates, press releases, statements by somebody or the other, and so on.

Keith Barrow wrote:

This seems quite defensive to me.

It was mocking them for trying so many times and failing. What is defensive about it? Saying we kicked their butt and that they are still sore is defensive? What are you smoking?

Keith Barrow wrote:

Yeh it does, you said "Pakistani's bring up Kashmir most of the time" I provided a link to a Pakistani newspaper that didn't mention it at all. For your contention to be likely to be valid, more than 50% of the articles would need to mention it.

You are going on and on about something about which you have no idea at all. And that last statement of yours:

Quote:

For your contention to be likely to be valid, more than 50% of the articles would need to mention it.

...is pretty idiotic, really. So if and only if more than 50% of the articles in a Paki newspaper are about Kashmir, then and only then my contention is likely to be valid (it would still not be valid, just be

Keith Barrow wrote:

Tell me, how does this invalidate my observation about the original joke? In cas eyou can't remember, it was the bit about, of these types of jokes when told by Indians, squeezing unfunnily coercing a positive stereotype Indian into the mix (where it clearly there wasn't one oringally), then a bit about Pakistan, accusing them of raising the issue of Kashmir.

My point was that stereotypes are always based on exaggerated versions of reality. Secondly, jokes where people from a particular country are shown in a positive light, and others are made fun of, are pretty common. What's so different about this one? As for accusing Pakis of raising the issue of Kashmir, and the following comment of yours...

Keith Barrow wrote:

I've sited one source backing my claim up (about Kashmir). I notice you can't do the same, so I can only assume you are, indeed, racist. If you quantitatively prove that Pakistanis bring up the subject of Kashmir more than 50% of the time, I'll happily retract this contention.

Pakistanis keep bringing up Kashmir because it's a part of India, and they want it to be free/a part of Pakistan/a Pakistan-supported nation/state. India, on the other hand, doesn't need to keep bringing up Kashmir, because, you see, why would we need to? Kashmir is already a part of India, so we are not likely to claim Pakistan took it away or something. Pakistan is the one who keeps breaching the borders, does ceasefire violations on the borders, etc. Of course, you won't find all that in today's news. Or yesterday's. And so on. But that doesn't mean these things don't happen. I can't believe you link to a website saying since it doesn't mention Kashmir on the front page, it is statistically proven that Pakistanis don't keep bringing up Kashmir every now and then. Just a month or so ago, the Pakistani army opened fire on the border. But you won't find it in today's news, would you? Kashmir is a pain point for both India and Pakistan. It has been a cause of war between the two countries for the past six decades or so. The entire terrorist "mission" against India is because Pakistanis are still sore that they couldn't snatch Kashmir away from us, despite their repeated attempts. The front page of a news site is no "source backing your claim up." If you think I can't back up my "claim" statistically or quantitatively or otherwise, I don't care. I don't ne

Keith Barrow wrote:

Hell Yeh.

Yeah, right.

Keith Barrow wrote:

this[^] page, searched for Kashmir in the text and got zero matches.

I refer the gentleman to this comment of mine:

I wrote:

You know how when they draw caricatures of politicians or other people, they draw a huge nose, or a huge lip, or a hugely protruding forehead, etc.? And everyone knows that of course the nose or the lip or the forehead is not that big in relation to the rest of the face, but it's still a fun way of pointing out that the person has a huge nose, lip or forehead, etc.? Jokes based on stereotypes are just like that.

Please read it. Slowly, this time, in case you fail to understand again. And then consider that stereotypes are about things that have happened for quite a while in the past. Not necessarily what is happening currently.

Keith Barrow wrote:

pretty racist.

ROFL! Are you for real?

Keith Barrow wrote:

a trend I've noticed is jokes like this one (nationalities conforming to to some stereotype or another) and posted by Indian members always manages to clumsily squeeze India into the thing, and always show the Indians in a good light.

And that is somehow different from what others would do? Would you write a joke that presents your country in a bad light? And if you did, would such a joke be popular in your country? You could have easily said: A trend I've noticed is jokes like this one (nationalities conforming to to some stereotype or another) and posted by [[insert country]] members always manages to clumsily squeeze [[insert country]] into the thing, and always show the [[insert country]] in a good light.

Keith Barrow wrote:

The other thing that they've all done (at least the ones that have registered) is mention Kashmir. And they've all blamed the Pakistanis for brining it up.

If you lived in India/Pakistan, you would know that Pakistan really does somehow manage to bring Kashmir into almost every issue. Hence the stereotype. And hence the jokes. You know how when they draw caricatures of politicians or other people, they draw a huge nose, or a huge lip, or a hugely protruding forehead, etc.? And everyone knows that of course the nose or the lip or the forehead is not that big in relation to the rest of the face, but it's still a fun way of pointing out that the person has a huge nose, lip or forehead, etc.? Jokes based on stereotypes are just like that. Get it now?

Douglas Troy wrote:

All that said, I'd just like to say:
 
HA HA.

LOL! ROFL! :laugh: :laugh:

Damn! I don't have enough toes to count.

You mean this isn't 31 BC?

That's because, in 31 years, everyone is going to start saying it's 1000 years old.

Actually, the Indians do drive carefully. It's the foreigners with slow reflexes who like to sleep at the wheel, and can't manage to drive on Indian roads. ;P

Well, they pay attention to the road and the traffic, it seems. ;-)

Shameel wrote:

BJP (aka RSS)

BJP is not RSS. They are two different organisations, with different goals (one political, another ideological).

Shameel wrote:

aka extremism

I disagree that it's extremism in any way. If that is the case, what do you have to say about the hundreds of Muslim organisations? They are somehow "secular" but BJP/RSS are communal/extremist? Why?

Shameel wrote:

Being Hindus, they have every right to say no to cow' meat; but have no right to force people of other religions not to eat cow's meat.

How Hindus feel about cow slaughter is different from say, what a Muslim feels about eating pork. Muslims don't eat pork, but don't consider pigs sacred. On the other hand, Hindus don't eat cow meat because they consider cows sacred animals. Naturally, they would protect something that is sacred to them. So what they are doing is not anything against Muslim, Christians, or those Hindus who do eat beef, but it's something to protect the cows from getting slaughtered. So you see, it's not fanatism. Just like if you pass laws that prohibit you from killing another human being, it's not fanatism.

Shameel wrote:

religious fanatics

How are they religious fanatics (in the context of this law, at least)?

1600x900.

Wow!

They lower a witch's tit into water at room temperature. The water around the tit freezes, and they use the newly formed ice to shape wine glasses.

Shameel wrote:

Here in India, we don't go that low even during winters.

You mean in your state. Just wait till you experience the north Indian winter.

Yesh. Thish ish a reposht.