3 ms·

The UK once invaded India. Maybe that was too long ago to matter, but I think a lot of people in India might think otherwise.

mrtksn 4y ago
They can think whatever they like but they will be wrong if they think that.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Subjectively wrong (e.g. you disagree), or objectively wrong? How could such a thing be objectively determined at all? There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Objectively wrong, there’s no evidence of ongoing British invasion of India.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      The claim is that the UK once invaded and subjugated India, recently enough to matter. Not that India is presently in that state.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        The analogy works when the owner of the foreign media also is waging a war against you or your allies. Just because some time in the past you had a military conflict doesn’t make it the same thing because something happened in the past doesn’t have immediate and irreversible effects. Since there are no immediate risks, you get the chance to respond and correct and that’s why you can have free media. Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        What you're saying is that you, subjectively, think that the UK's past invasion of India isn't relevant because it was long ago and not ongoing (and because the UK did this to lots of people, that makes it a lesser crime?) And I'm saying that quite a lot of people don't agree with your subjective judgement. Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        No, Objectively UK's past invasion of India doesn't create a cause for British media to pose immediate and irreversible risks to India. This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        That’s not the invasion they have a chip on their shoulder about
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    There are a lot of people today in India subjugated by Indians as well.

mrtksn 4y ago

They can think whatever they like but they will be wrong if they think that.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Subjectively wrong (e.g. you disagree), or objectively wrong? How could such a thing be objectively determined at all? There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Objectively wrong, there’s no evidence of ongoing British invasion of India.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    The claim is that the UK once invaded and subjugated India, recently enough to matter. Not that India is presently in that state.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      The analogy works when the owner of the foreign media also is waging a war against you or your allies. Just because some time in the past you had a military conflict doesn’t make it the same thing because something happened in the past doesn’t have immediate and irreversible effects. Since there are no immediate risks, you get the chance to respond and correct and that’s why you can have free media. Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        What you're saying is that you, subjectively, think that the UK's past invasion of India isn't relevant because it was long ago and not ongoing (and because the UK did this to lots of people, that makes it a lesser crime?) And I'm saying that quite a lot of people don't agree with your subjective judgement. Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        No, Objectively UK's past invasion of India doesn't create a cause for British media to pose immediate and irreversible risks to India. This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      That’s not the invasion they have a chip on their shoulder about
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  There are a lot of people today in India subjugated by Indians as well.