here's my ask that i sent her! :
https://www.tumblr.com/theladybrownstarot/807352485035556864/if-love-is-everything-why-do-you-wish-violence-on?source=share
if the issue is muslims as a whole, then the logic collapses immediately.
bollywood which you casually dismiss through “celebs condemning” is built largely by muslims and families whose ancestral roots lie in what is now modern day pakistan (the khan’s, kapoor’s, dutt’s, gulzar, chopra’s, dilip kumar, khanna’s, anand’s, roshan’s). you consume their art, their labour, their culture, yet morally disqualify them as a group. that’s not principle, that’s your selective outrage.
you argue that neutrality during moral crisis is evil, yet you remain neutral (or supportive) when extremism exists within your own political ecosystem. if extremism is defined by collective blame, and justification of violence, then by that definition any leader or ideology, including modi, andhbakth's, or hindutva politics, must also be open to scrutiny, no? moral standards don’t get suspended when the “other side” commits wrong.
trauma explains anger, yes, but it does not morally license collective punishment. healing requires accountability and restraint, not the replacement of one absolutism with another.
now, calling violence “venting” is dangerous by even your definition. violence is not catharsis? it is escalation. innocence is not measured by loud opposition or silence, but by actions. if you wanna be taken seriously, then apply your principles universally? including to your own side. otherwise, this isn’t about justice or healing. it’s just grievance wearing morality’s language.
moreover, as sikh punjabi, i’m not okay with jallianwala bagh being used to justify collective hatred today. that massacre was a colonial crime against unarmed civilians, not a licence for present-day dehumanisation. honouring that trauma means rejecting collective punishment, not repeating it in another form.
but then again, since, we are talking about historical trauma and violence, let’s not selectively remember history.
i’m a sikh punjabi. if muslims are to be collectively blamed for the actions of extremists, then the same logic must apply to all sections. operation blue star was ordered by indira gandhi, a hindu prime minister, who sent the indian army into the holiest sikh shrine on a day of a festival. what followed in 1984 was a sikh genocide mass killings, rapes, homes burned, carried out largely by mobs, with political protection, while the state stood by and did nothing.
by your logic, should sikhs then conclude “hindus are the problem”? of course not. because that would be collective punishment, and it would be morally wrong.
that is the point you keep missing. extremism is not owned by one religion. power, nationalism, and majoritarianism produce violence everywhere, whether it’s islamist extremism, hindutva extremism, or state-backed violence disguised as patriotism.
jallianwala bagh, 1984, pahalgam, none of these tragedies become meaningful if they are used to justify hatred of entire communities. honouring victims means rejecting the very logic that enabled their suffering. if muslims must answer for terrorists, then hindus must answer for 1984, and the state must answer for blue star. if that sounds absurd to you, good. that’s exactly why collective blame is absurd.
and then before you start:
if you think operation blue star / 1984 is different, political and not religious and a response to extremism : terrorism is also political. state violence is not morally exempted. once you justify violence as a “response,” every side will always find a reason to do the same.
before you say i’m defending muslims: that is a projection. defending individuals from collective blame is not defending extremism. confusing the two is what is the problem.
if you say all muslims are quiet about these stuff, so that means they are complicit: silence does not equal support. because then in that logic, most hindus were complicit in 1984: which i reject. moral responsibility is individual, not inherited.
moral standards either apply universally, or they mean nothing. that is the principle, if it applies universally, it works. if not it's bias. (thought using principle might work since you bring up aristole and plato)
