Mallinson is not appropriating anything, he's a scholar who does proper research and have been recognized as a Mahant by the Nath Sampradaya for all the hard work of recognition for the Sampradaya he has been doing all this time. Appropriation is making something yours you have no authority on.
Does it all has any meaning? Are they real? Are they trying to sound brave & outspoken. If all that was not a farce, why did not they invite Taslima Nasreen? You can freely express your views on Hinduism, Christianity, Budhhism, Jainism or Zoarastiaism with a little murmur here & there. Can you exercise your freedom of expression against Islamic religious intolerance on the same footing? Did you say something? Sorry! I could not get that!
I feel it’s an important point you raise but if you hear the first speaker you would have some representation to your thought - May be not having star confusion kept the quality isn’t it...
why not just read the story and criticise it over actual details instead of attacking an author about writing a piece that this woman has never actually read nor even shows evidence she knows anything about. she never actually quotes the text
Love for Animals & Cruelty against Animals - If some one says - riding a horse is cruelty - you are burdening the poor horse with your weight. The lens used by Animal Lovers is very generic.
Bunch of White folk defending their "revision" of a culture different of their own to fit their paradigm. Neither they nor their followers can see it like every one else. That cricket reference is a prime example and a pathetic false equivalency argument.
