Yeah that guy is seeing the same thing I have tried to describe. India brutalizes people and then people just become hard and brutal just to protect themselves.
I’d also like to add: the physical weakness of Indians is definitely influenced by their vegetarianism. India has the highest proportion of vegetarians in the world.
Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism also have strong traditions of ahimsa, or non-violence. So the ability to be violent wasn’t being selected for.
It’s almost like Indian ecology rewards weakness. It’s critical for the way that their civilization works.
I’m not sure if Izzat is a bad thing. Since I work with Indians, I see that they are quite good and competent.
The Eastern focus on reputation has been under attack by the West for a long time. We know it’s been under attack since the daughter of missionaries, Ruth Benedict, wrote a book claiming that China cares about “shame” more than “guilt.” This is not really true. As many actual academics and many academic books have pointed out, guilt also exists in the East.
In general, the focus on shame and reputation in the East is raw realism. Yes, people are judging you, and yes, your life will be better if you do the things that increase reputation. The benefits of being a “great person” are immense - a fat Indian chick with a decent face who is smart, well-spoken, responsible, not mentally-ill, hard-working, in a high-status career, etc. is a more desirable mate than the most visually-appealing dumb bimbo. Conversely, the reputational cost of doing bad things is very steep - steep enough that it outweighs the benefits of it.
The West’s reputation is shot now. We are all suffering from the consequences of our bad reputation. Everybody hates us, many white people accept the guilt since it’s the most moral thing to do and keeps relationships with non-whites as best as possible, the guilty whites turn on other whites and devour ourselves, we always feel unsafe, unloved, uncared for, etc. It’s Hell. All of the slavery and colonialism was not worth this. But, this is how things always are, when you do evil. You also suffer.
Shamelessness generally leads to bad behavior. Shame is an effective control. Without it, chaos is hard to check. You have to really ramp up the punishment.
More than anything, Reputation is just how humans work. People are at root, self-interested, and having a culture that teaches people to understand the mechanics of self-interest gives people the guidance they need to fulfill our humans emotional needs.
The Christian and post-Christian Enlightenment West tries to create angelic humans who do what is right because it follows the metaphysical ethereal entitites of “Good” and “Evil,” which we dutifully follow even to the death, as slavish deontological moralists. The concern over reputation is viewed as immoral selfishness. It is a barrier to the goal of 100% pure slavish duty to the Good-ether. The West wants us to remove that barrier of self-interest over reputation, and force us to “be good for goodness’s sake!!!”
The Enlightenment West, by exerting extreme social control towards Expressive Individualism, and stigmatizing shame and reputation, and their sister, ambition, is obfuscating from people the path to happiness. The path to happiness is to become a “great person.” Once you are a “great person,” people will like you, hang out with you, marry you, etc.
The East understands this and tries to make their kids great.
The West disputes this, telling their kids to “just be yourself,” which is to say, an immature 10-year-old, and tells their kids to humbly abide by a future where Asians and Jews are great. It tells us to not to be upset, since being upset is committing the sin of envy…
I am very familiar with this side of them; They see their ability to scam as evidence of superior intelligence and they sneer at Whites for falling for it, seeing you as somehow mentally inferior.
That is VERY ACCURATE to my experience.
I however do not see them as great but repulsive, amoral and very very very physically cowardly.
How did you reason this? Would it not be equally valid to determine that Indians are physically weak because they are lazy rather than lazy because they are physically weak?
This is not a critique. I am asking because I am trying to improve my own reasoning.
Definitely lazy because they are weak. Exercise is performed by hard workers; the average human is sedentary, because it is the natural way of being.
George Kingsley Zipf established that all human decisions follow an economy of effort – they follow the “path of least resistance.”
So humans are naturally lazy, just as animals, plants, and other self-propagating systems are. Additional effort is only expended if it reduces the total average amount of work.
“Lazy” as the term is commonly used is just a word that’s used to browbeat you. It means that you’re not living up to society’s preferred method of cutting corners. In society’s view, the man who skips work to drink vodka is a “slacker,” because paying into the system is the truly comfortable path through life.
Of course, as you can already guess, the economy of the worker conflicts with the economy of society: your boss demands more work from you so that he doesn’t have to work as hard.
And then, to cope with this exploitation, workers pretend that their “hard work” makes them morally superior to others. “You think YOU’VE had it hard?!!”
Indians may be physically weak because of their diet, which is vegetarian. But this weakness, whatever it is caused by, seems to make real work intolerable for them, and they devise shortcuts around it. This is especially hellish for them given how little they are paid, and how long they must keep working. So they go about it in the lamest way imaginable.
Thread on chaalaki
https://archive.ph/UtKth