നവ ലിബറൽ നയങ്ങളിൽ തിളങ്ങുന്ന യുവ ഇന്ത്യ - Haridasan P B | Milan22 | Palakkad | 26-Jun-2022 

Average malayalee is still watching soaps and following shitty politicians.

P B ഹരിദാസൻ, പ്രവീൺ രവി etc. are the real "rationalists" of Kerala. The rest of them including RC who primarily target religion are actually irrational. Explanation below. Most rationalists in Kerala have a reductionist tendency to reduce every problem in society to religion and how atheism can solve all our issues. I think most rationalists take a position to defend atheism (not rationalism) without going into the detail of whether atheism or religion is the root cause of the problem we are trying to solve. Rationalism and atheism became so popular in this society now because people are frustrated with the backwardness and poverty in our society, not because of a personal grudge against religion. So these people think religion is all pervasive in this society and naturally people think there is a correlation (note the point) between religion and economic or social progress. This the basis or reason because of which 99 or 90 percent of discussions in the space of rationalism is limited to atheism. My position is that this is premise itself is questionable when you look at the facts. Does the economic progress and religion have correlation s or causation? Why this question? the relevance of the question is about the utility of atheism. I think atheists are atheists not because of personal grudge, but either because of 1.scientific temper or2. lack of social progress. about science I agree but practically as of now not everyone in an indian contexts is mature to think along those lines. but if it's about social progress then my position is atheism will only have a limited impact. The two (religion and economic progress) have correlation , but if we talk about causation, it's economic progress or lack of it that causes religion to grow, not the other way around as per the common narrative based on Scandinavia and western Europe. In scandinavia or western Europe , the common narrative is about how religion is disappearing there, and the implicit or the explicit point is that they made economic progress because religion disappeared there. But in reality it is the other way around. Religion is disappearing there because they made economic progress. There is no proof of any atheistic movement there. (whereas where there were govt sponsored atheistic movements religion has grown stronger, for example in soviet occupied Poland. Poland has most churches per capita) I disagree with the notion which says that development will only happen if we break religious/tribal/caste barriers I think it is the other way around. Religious/tribal/caste barriers will break only after economic/social development happens. Marx once said religion is the opium of the "masses" Note that he chose to use the word "masses", he did not use a word like humans, or people. It's because he inteneded to point to a particular class of people - poor people. In other words rich people don't need religion, they can buy opium itself, or alcohol. ( I'm not a communist, but this is correct in more ways than one. There are arguments that he was sympathetic to religion or dead against it . But irrespective of that argument the fact remains that wherever there are poor people they resort to religion to hang on, to hope for a better life, or to suppress their misfortunes) Psychologically, from the point of view of the "masses", God/belief are alternative systems for certainty/luck/hope. For poor people in poor countries, they have very little certainty or luck, or hope in life. So naturally, they earn for those things, and they do that by praying to God or sticking to customs that they think will bring them good fortune. In developed countries, they already have certainty in life. For example, if they go to a govt office they don't have to pray for their objective to happen without praying bribe. They don't have to pray that their train or bus arrives in time. They don't have to pray that their child comes back from school safely. They don't have to pray/hope for their next meal. All this means that there is less need to pray to God/for luck. And that leads to fewer people being religious. Somany new age rationalists or non rationalists argue that religion is the cause of all evil in society and that it blocks development. The simple question is, supposing all established religions disappear tomorrow (possibly possible with technology in future), but if you continue to live in a society that does not offer any opportunity to improve a person's life, then will anything really change in that society? For one day he might forget religion, but the second day he will go back to praying to a tree or sun. They will invent a new religion on the 3rd day. This way God or religion becomes a necessity in societies that do not offer anything good to it's people. If there is no God-like concept in such communities, it might go to complete anarchy, because in such societies, for many people, no God effectively means no hope in their future. And that will obviously lead to disastrous things. In most developed countries religion is becoming less important because people's lives are improving. It is not the other way around. I think it is a subtle, but the most important point.That's the rationale through which I argue that if the objective is to get rid of religion/tribal culture or if the objective is to have a better standard of living or both, the one and only solution is to have economic progress. So we'll be better utilizing our time if we talk about lack of economic progress, rather than directly tackling religion because the masses are not ready for that in poor people's social context. And when the masses are ready for taking religious criticism, chances are they wont need advice on religion as proved in western Europe and Scandinavia. Else it (attacking religion) will be like swatting mosquitoes, it will might help you and your immediate surroundings, but the mosquitoes (religion) will keep coming because there are plenty of breeding grounds for religion. In other words, if there are people who speak up for rationalism based on the social backwardness of Kerala or India or other third world countries (lets leave out the scientific temper sect), then they should be working or standing up for economic growth of the region , and if that happens religion will automatically become unimportant. Another funny thing is, most of the rationalists are based out of Kerala and they seem to be Ok or rather happy that every 1 keralite out of 5 have no choice but to work outside our country and and at the same time we make fun of Bangladeshis and Philippines expats and we boast that we malayalees can even open a tea shop in Moon. This is completely irrational. The first thing we should ask ourselves is why are we having to work outside our country - is it religion that caused it? Another funny thing is - when I tried to raise this (rational) topic I have only faced intolerance (from people who call themselves rationalists) and they accused me of being an soldier of religion. എന്താല്ലേ

@@MAdhawanPRakash I don't fully understand the argument that you are putting forward. Tackling religious polarization is not the priority is the core crux of your argument, if I understand correctly. CMIIW Kerala and India both have progressed by eons since 90s. Same goes for the world. Why is religious extremism(by this I mean thoughts not fundamentalist action) coming back to vogue? This phenomena is not a unique third world country phenomena as it used to be. Its all across the world. Extreme arguments across left and right are winning. There is no moderate voice anymore anywhere. At least they are not loud enough. This is partly attributable to the retweet era of social media where a monkey with a bell dancing naked is amplified across the world within some seconds. Propaganda has never been easier to spread. This is the scenario that we are living in. In that respect its important to curb spread of religion(extreme form of it) through debates and awareness. I dont see how or why that should be deprioritized. One could argue environmental factors is going to dominate this century and might be our highest priority, but beyond that extreme voices across spectrum must be opposed with vigor.

Don't put statements without proof....open your ear and eyes without political spectacles

ദാരിദ്ര്യം കുറവാണ്

സോഷ്യൽ സെക്യൂരിറ്റി എന്നൊന്നുണ്ട്,അത് നടപ്പിൽ വരുത്താൻ ഈ പ്രശ്നം കഴിയും....പിന്നെ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസവും, ആരോഗ്യവും ജനത്തിന് കൊടുക്കാൻ എന്തെ ഇവിടുത്തെ പ്രധാന രാഷ്ട്രീയ പാർട്ടികൾ തമ്മിൽ മത്സരിക്കുന്നില്ല....

വിഡ്ഢിത്തരം വിളിച്ചു പറയരുത്. 60കളിലെയും 70കളിലെയും ദാരിദ്ര്യത്തിൽ നിന്ന് എത്രയോ കുറവാണ് 90 കളിൽ, രണ്ടായിരത്തിനു ശേഷം, ഇന്ന് ഇന്ത്യയിൽ ദാരിദ്ര്യം വളരെ കുറവാണ്. തീരെ ഇല്ല എന്നല്ല, പക്ഷേ മുൻകാലഘട്ടങ്ങളിലേക്കാൾ ദാരിദ്ര്യത്തിന്റെ റേറ്റ് വളരെ വളരെ കുറവാണ്. സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്കൽ എവിഡൻസ് ഇല്ലാതെ കുറേ ഇടതുപക്ഷ രാഷ്ട്രീയക്കാർ പറയുന്നത് കേട്ട് ഇമ്മാതിരി വിഡ്ഢിത്തരം വെച്ചുകൊളമ്പരുത്

ദോഷങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടാകുമായിരിക്കും, പക്ഷെ മറ്റൊരു badhal നിങ്ങൾക്കു നിർദ്ദേശിക്കാൻ പറ്റുമോ.

ഏതൊരു പദ്ധതിക്കും രണ്ട് വശമുണ്ടാകും ദോഷത്തെക്കാൾകൂടുതൽ ഗുണമാണെന്കിൽ അത് സ്വീകരിക്കുക ദോഷന്കളെന്താണെന്ന് പറയുക

ദോഷമുള്ളത് കൊണ്ടാണല്ലോ,ഇവിടുത്തെ മണ്ടന്മാർ ഈ പോളസി പണ്ടെ സ്വീകരിച്ച രാജ്യങ്ങളിലേക്ക് കുടിയേറാൻ പെടാപാട് പെടുന്നത് 😂😂😂

അതിലേറെ ദോഷമോ? ഗ്ലോബലൈസേഷൻ, ലിബറലൈസേഷൻ കൊണ്ടുമാത്രമാണ് ഇന്ത്യ ഇന്ന് ഈ നിലയിൽ എത്തിയത്. അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കാണാമായിരുന്നു, പല സൗത്ത് അമേരിക്കൻ രാജ്യങ്ങളെയും പോലെ ആയേനെ അവസ്ഥ. നിങ്ങൾ ഈ വലിയ വായിൽ കടന്ന് കമന്റ് ഇടുന്ന യൂട്യൂബും ഇന്റർനെറ്റും എല്ലാം ആ പദ്ധതിയുടെ സംഭാവനയാണ്

നീ കാര്യങ്ങൾ മനസിലാക്കാൻ കഴിയാത്ത ഒരു ദുരന്തം ആണ് 😃

ക്യുബ യും വെനസ്വലായും, നമുക്ക് മാതൃകയാക്കാം.

@@sasichayip5869 ഇരുട്ടിനെ മാത്രം ഇഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നവർ ഇതിൽ തമാശ നവലീബറൽ നയംകൊണ്ടുള്ള പുരോഗതിയെ ഉപയോഗിച്ച് അതിനെ കുറ്റം പറയുന്നു

കണ്ണ് 10 ശതമാനം മാത്രം തുറന്നു പിടിച്ചാൽ പോരാ, കണ്ണ് കുറച്ചു കൂടി തുറന്നു പിടിച്ചാൽ ലോകത്തെ വികസിത രാജ്യങ്ങൾ ( Europe, south Korea, Taiwan, Japan etc. Not USA) എങ്ങനെ വികസിച്ചു എന്ന് കാണാം

ithrem data kettiittu ingane parayanamenkil ninakku pranthaayirikkanam

ന്ന നമുക്ക് ക്യൂബക്ക് പോകാം 😂😂😂😂