First of all, I'm Gujarati myself, so anything I say here is not racism against Gujarati people; it's the truth I myself see as a Gujarati person, as someone who understands Gujarat and Gujarati cinema.

Every time I talk about TMKOC, people criticise it without understanding it....

The show is not about feminism, liberalism, or secularism either. It is about the dehati (desi, gamdiya) Jethalal and his family trying to adjust in the metropolitan city of Mumbai.

It's how a Jain Gujarati who doesn't even eat onion would see his neighbours. Also, it's stereotypes which Gujaratis used to have about Mumbai and the rest of India during the 80s to 2000s. The original column was written by Gujarati for Gujarati in Gujarati. Also, most Sub TV shows are either Gujarati or Punjabi family, if you observe them closely. And even this particular show was directed by a Gujarati.

Obviously, it's not about all Gujaratis or doesn't represent the mindset of all Gujarati men. But this is how some Gujarati men see their life.

They stereotype Punjabis as drunk and loud. Marathi or people who live in Mumbai for a long time as culture police, and they think Bengali women are attractive and South Indian guys are black and not good-looking. They obviously had jealousy for "unattractive South Indians" because, at that time in Mumbai, the South Indians were their biggest competitor, taking their jobs.

Also, they think very highly of themselves. This is very common in these non-onion-eating folks; they always think their lifestyle is superior or more cultured than others.

It's just locker-room talk between Taarak Mehta (Brahmin ) and Jethalal (Jain Kutchi Baniya) from Gujarat trying to adjust in this new metropolitan city.

That's it.

PS: Even today, they look down on couples living separately. And it’s not just them; almost every Indian show, especially SAB TV shows, portrays “breaking the joint family” as a sin. They also don’t really portray love marriages as a good thing. That’s why, in almost every TMKOC episode involving a love marriage, it only happens with the parents’ permission, while running away with your partner against your parents’ wishes is portrayed as immoral.

Daya gives monologues about how using machines to make rotis is bad and how women should always cook. And in the name of career counselling, Mehta often pushes kids towards pursuing their parents’ businesses.

That’s the reality of the show, even in 2026.

As a heterosexual man, I initially rejected this claim when I heard it yesterday. But after spending several hours looking into the math, I realized there actually is a simple demographic explanation: heterosexual women + homosexual men make up a slightly larger share of the population than heterosexual men + homosexual women.

What I found more interesting, though, is how little visible evidence men may receive of this attraction.

Women have historically been much more socially restricted from openly expressing sexual desire, especially in public. A huge amount of mainstream literature, film, art, advertising, and other media was also created in societies where male perspectives dominated these fields.

So even if a larger share of the population is attracted to men, the visible representation of that attraction can still be disproportionately focused on women being desirable to men.

TIL that being less visibly desired isn't necessarily the same thing as being less desired.

“Decentralise men” while spending 12 hours a day on Instagram, Reddit, TikTok and WhatsApp, platforms built and run largely by men.

Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Huffman, Evan Spiegel and a bunch of other dudes built the playground, and you’re standing in it screaming about how much you hate the people who built it.

Then you trust algorithms built by engineers you’ve never met to decide what you see, what goes viral, and what you get angry about next.

And if these gender wars were actually empowering women, they probably wouldn’t be thriving on platforms built and controlled largely by conservative mysogynist men in the first place.

“Fuck men.”

Posted from a phone, on a platform, using infrastructure built largely by men. 💀

I know this opinion isn’t unpopular at all, but the discussion around it is very unpopular. we barely talk about COVID-19 compared to how deeply it affected us.

COVID collectively fucked us up in ways we still can’t comprehend. There were no proper SOPs; everyone was figuring things out as they went. Some decisions were wrong, some were necessary, but the whole experience changed us so deeply that imagining a world where COVID never happened feels almost impossible.

Ironically, it might be one of the least discussed events of our generation.

No offence, but its impact was arguably bigger than 9/11—and in some ways, even comparable to the World Wars.

I mean, look at what they’re actually saying: “Not all Muslims are terrorists,” “Black lives matter,” “There should be no poor people,” or “The rich shouldn’t be allowed to gatekeep wealth.”

How can you hate those ideas? I understand that even the most extreme leftist who opposes a war while their own country is fighting it can be called impractical or unrealistic. But how does that make the underlying idea wrong?

How can it be wrong to say that war is bad, violence is bad, and unnecessary suffering is bad? I know not all leftists are pacifists, and you can certainly argue that there are situations where violence may be necessary. But if someone says that killing other human beings is wrong, how can that idea itself be considered wrong?

Similarly, if someone argues that extreme concentrations of wealth are unjust and that rich people should be made to redistribute some of their wealth to poorer people through legal, non-violent, and non-inhumane means, how exactly is that morally wrong? You can argue that their proposed solution is economically impractical, but that’s different from saying that the underlying moral principle is wrong.

Btw, I personally don’t even think they’re impractical. I actually think they’re necessary. They keep important issues alive and bring attention to problems that may not be mainstream today but could become obvious in the next century. For example:- The idea of a Black person becoming president of the United States might have seemed completely impractical in 1910. But someone dreamed about it, believed it was possible, and fought for it. Maybe they didn’t win a single election, but they kept that fire alive. And eventually, that once-impractical idea became reality. Same way veganism would look obvious to people in 2127

Patriarchy and misogyny are real, and no sane person should deny that. But they don't explain or influence everything under the open sky.

If I had to give an analogy, I'd say Sigmund Freud was right about some of his theories, the psychosexual stages, Oedipus complex, and penis envy. But some of his followers eventually turned those two or three ideas into a religion that supposedly explained everything about human behaviour.

I think modern feminism sometimes faces the same problem.

Boys watch football? Football is violent, therefore it promotes aggression, war support, and toxic masculinity. Women watch true-crime shows? They're supposedly preparing themselves for real-life trauma. I've literally read research papers making arguments along these lines.

I mean, really:- can't you see what you're doing?

Stop turning feminism into a theory of everything. If you see inequality, ask for equality. I have no problem with that. Women face casual misogyny every day, and it shouldn't exist.

I have no problem with people who want to challenge or dismantle discriminatory structures, nor do I have any desire to radicalise them. I fully recognise that women experience casual misogyny in everyday life, across different societies and contexts, and that it should not exist at all.

But human society, culture, and individual minds are far too complex to be explained through one framework.

As strongly as I oppose the literal genocide and mass suffering in the Middle East, I also try to be intellectually honest about why I oppose it. I grew up in Indian society, with values and moral assumptions shaped by my environment just as many people in the United States are shaped by theirs.

That said, I do not believe Islamist ideology, particularly in its most extreme forms, necessarily promotes the same ideas of individual freedom, religious tolerance, or human rights. If they had the power, they would have made the whole world like Afghanistan.

In my view, the lack of power is one of the main factors limiting such ambitions. This does not justify genocide, occupation, collective punishment, or violence against civilians. Opposing one form of oppression does not require us to romanticize or excuse another.

I think there are a significant number of people in the world who hate others because of their identity. However, men hold power in most spaces, not because they are inherently divine or superior, obviously, but because of centuries of patriarchy and misogyny. Since men generally hold more power in society, they are less likely to be systematically targeted or discriminated against simply for being male.

But the same is not necessarily true for boys and children. Children are inherently vulnerable and dependent on adults, which can make them easier targets for people who hold prejudices against their identity. That is why some misandrists may direct their hatred or resentment toward boys and try to harm or abuse them because they are male. Sometimes, these people may even be the children's own mothers.

There is also another form of hostility that can contribute to misogynistic attitudes: raising a boy to be misogynistic toward all women except his own mother. This can create men who disrespect women in general but remain completely submissive to their own abusive or controlling mothers. I think this dynamic is particularly visible in some Asian societies with traditions of joint families, where certain unhealthy family dynamics can become deeply normalized.

I’m an antinatalist, but not anti-human or anti-child. If humanity were genuinely facing extinction, I would drop antinatalism in a second.

The problem is that we are still moving upward in total population for at least the next 100 to 200 years. After that, it could take another 500 to 600 years to return to the population we had just one or two centuries ago. It may take around 250 years just to reach the population levels we had a few decades ago. My math could be wrong, but even in a worst-case scenario, we are unlikely to return to 1850 population levels before 2250.

Yes, there may eventually be more old people and fewer young people as a proportion of the population. But in absolute numbers, the number of young people could still be higher than the historical average for most of human history. The real issue would therefore be having more elderly people, not necessarily too few young people.

Having more children is not a sustainable solution. Basic mathematics shows that constantly producing more children to support an ageing population simply pushes the same problem onto future generations while increasing population pressure.

Overpopulation is a major threat multiplier behind many potential extinction-level threats. More people means greater pressure on finite resources such as food, water, land, and energy, while also accelerating environmental destruction, climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and resource depletion. When billions more people must compete within a finite system, inequality, poverty, mass displacement, and conflict become harder to prevent. Overpopulation may not be the sole cause of every crisis, but it can intensify nearly all of them. A civilization cannot grow its population indefinitely on a planet with finite resources without eventually increasing the risk of catastrophic and potentially extinction-level consequences.

If you genuinely care about humanity and the long-term survival of our species, you cannot ignore the consequences of endlessly increasing the number of people competing for finite resources. From this perspective, antinatalism is not anti-humanity; it is a moral choice rooted in concern for the humans already here and for the future of humanity itself.

My position is actually pro-human and pro-humanity. Before creating more people, we should learn to properly care for the billions already here, including the elderly, and build systems that do not depend on endlessly producing more children to sustain themselves.

I see people claiming that someone can earn thousands or even millions of dollars by selling nude photos, pubic hair, farting videos, or simply selling content on OnlyFans or similar platforms.

I honestly don't believe it, because there are literal human being being sold for life in human traffic for less than $100 in some Asian and African countries, and you're telling me someone is dumb enough to spend the same amount of money watching a woman fart or looking at someone's feet when they can find similar content for free on the internet? They could even go to a red-light district and hire a prostitute for the whole night for the same or less amount.

I don't think you can realistically sustain a life just by sharing your nudes online. If making money from this kind of content were really that easy and lucrative, there wouldn't be people giving blowjobs for $20; everyone would just be selling videos of themselves farting while wearing masks on OnlyFans, or selling their unwashed socks to people with a foot fetish.

There are also findoms who claim to have clients who give them money simply for being abusive toward them. I think a lot of these stories are just propaganda designed to attract young women to OnlyFans and other thirst-trap content. It's basically marketing: make it seem like anyone can make thousands or even millions of dollars from sexual content online, when in reality, I suspect the vast majority of people make little or no money from it.

First, give me a moment to explain before judging. If you’re an antinatalist, I assume you already care about reducing suffering.

From Buddhism and Christianity to antinatalism and communism, many philosophies ultimately aim, in some way, to reduce suffering. But here’s my question: if life is inevitable, wouldn’t eliminating humanity simply leave suffering to other animals. or potentially future intelligent life elsewhere?

I think humans may actually be the only beings capable of systematically reducing suffering through reason and technology. That doesn’t mean we need more humans. I’m still broadly antinatalist: population growth isn’t inherently good, and more people doesn’t mean more rationality.

Instead, I think we should focus on fewer people, more resources, better technology, and dramatically less suffering.

We’ve already seen this happen. Technology reduced our dependence on hunting, improved animal-welfare standards, expanded agriculture, and made alternatives like veganism increasingly viable. Generally, greater wealth and resources also give societies more capacity to protect vulnerable and marginalized people (women, children, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups) and animals.

Yes, I know this argument risks treating people as means rather than purely as ends. But what are we ultimately treating as the end? Ethics, rationality, and the reduction of suffering. Even identifying that ethical goal requires ethics, and developing ethics requires human intelligence.

So what’s the end goal? A smaller but far more capable humanity, perhaps a few hundred million people, not through anything radical, but through voluntarily choosing care over reproduction.

Instead of being obsessed with duplicating our DNA, we could care for children who already exist, adopt, and build systems where elderly people are cared for without needing children simply to avoid loneliness in old age.

We should also build a society where everyone can feel loved and supported: a woman without a husband, an old man without children, or a young person without a romantic partner shouldn’t be socially condemned to loneliness.

It’s strange that we often create families, and then reproduce to preserve them, largely because we fear being alone. Perhaps one goal of antinatalism should be to build a society where love, companionship, and care aren’t dependent on reproduction or romantic relationships.

That's it. Hitler is way too discussed. Yes, he was an evil, horrific perpetrator of genocide, but he wasn't as historically significant as people often make him out to be. He was, ultimately, another authoritarian politician who happened to gain enormous power and cause catastrophic destruction.

P.S.: Halfway through writing this, I realized this could sound insensitive to Holocaust survivors and victims, which is absolutely not my intention. The Holocaust and WWII must be studied and remembered so we never forget the horrors humans are capable of. My point is simply that Hitler himself is often given disproportionate attention. WWII affected people across the world, including millions of Indians and Japanese, and the Allied powers were hardly saints either, Britain, for instance, exploited India during the war. They created multiple man made famines in India. USA dropped second nuclear bomb for no reasons at all. and there are countless war crimes done during , before and after ww2.

I’m not going to say respect has to be earned. I think we all deserve some basic respect and consideration.

But women who think men should always make the first move (from asking out to proposing), hold doors, pay for dates, or that men are inherently immature and should therefore always date younger women, etc., are being naive. All of these expectations can reflect a sense of entitlement and, frankly, a greedy nature. And you know who loves greedy people? Con artists and manipulators.

These women may either end up with a “nice guy” who lacks confidence, meaning they settle for someone they don’t genuinely want, or they may fall for a love-bomber who gives them the “princess treatment” and eventually makes their life hell.

Obviously, people can outgrow these expectations, and I genuinely hope they do. I don’t think they deserve to end up in an abusive relationship. But if they keep refusing to outgrow this fantasy of being treated like a princess, they may end up paying a very harsh price for it.

I don’t respect that mindset, but I still don’t want anyone to suffer because of it. Chivalry is one thing; expecting men to constantly prove their worth through money, attention, and special treatment is another. At that point, it can either become love-bombing from manipulative men or plain entitlement toward men who simply aren’t interested in playing that role.

I’m not going to say respect has to be earned. I think we all deserve some basic respect and consideration.

But women who think men should always make the first move (from asking out to proposing), hold doors, pay for dates, or that men are inherently immature and should therefore always date younger women, etc., are being naive. All of these expectations can reflect a sense of entitlement and, frankly, a greedy nature. And you know who loves greedy people? Con artists and manipulators.

These women may either end up with a “nice guy” who lacks confidence, meaning they settle for someone they don’t genuinely want, or they may fall for a love-bomber who gives them the “princess treatment” and eventually makes their life hell.

Obviously, people can outgrow these expectations, and I genuinely hope they do. I don’t think they deserve to end up in an abusive relationship. But if they keep refusing to outgrow this fantasy of being treated like a princess, they may end up paying a very harsh price for it.

I don’t respect that mindset, but I still don’t want anyone to suffer because of it. Chivalry is one thing; expecting men to constantly prove their worth through money, attention, and special treatment is another. At that point, it can either become love-bombing from manipulative men or plain entitlement toward men who simply aren’t interested in playing that role.

What is RW and what is LW? Broadly speaking, RW tends to be more pro-establishment and comfortable with existing power structures, while LW is generally more sceptical of concentrated power. Obviously, not every LW person is a Marxist, and not every RW person wants a theoretical dictatorship. These are broad political tendencies, and their meanings vary across contexts. Some people also prefer the label liberal rather than leftist, which is a separate discussion. Also there are socialist leftist and communist leftist so it's very broad spectrum.

But honestly, if someone proudly identifies as RW, I already have questions. There is a difference between being hypocritical and licking the feet of the rich for personal benefit, and being proud of doing it. How can you be the pro establishment ? Isn't that morals 101, stand for weak speak against the powerful ? Stand for right.

The bigger problem is that many RW people seem to treat anything contradicting their ideology as propaganda. If every criticism is propaganda and every opposing argument is dismissed before it is even considered, then there is no meaningful debate. You cannot win a debate with someone who does not accept evidence, logic, or the possibility that they might be wrong.

And if such people gain power through a flawed information environment, logical fallacies, or by manipulating young and vulnerable people, the consequences can be much bigger than simply losing an argument.

So instead of wasting time trying to “win” debates against people who don't respect intellectual debate, we should have serious intellectual debates with people who actually value intellect and reasoning—regardless of their political ideology.

The point of debate should be to test ideas, not protect an identity.

I saw a meme here with painting of a drunk mother saying, “I’m not happy, but my kid will be.”

As someone who is pro-children but antinatalist, I think that’s actually too generous toward many parents.

A lot of parents, especially those struggling with addiction, poverty, or dysfunctional relationships, don’t necessarily love or even want their children. Sometimes they simply see them as a responsibility they’re stuck with. Abortion also has legal, moral, social, and practical barriers, and once someone is far enough into pregnancy or has already given birth, there is no options left.(Literally you can do nothing.)

People often treat children, elderly people, and disabled people as burdens. Even parents who planned their pregnancy can become neglectful or abusive when the reality of raising a child becomes difficult.

I honestly think society greatly exaggerates how much unconditional parental love exists. I know people who stay and care for struggling, alcoholic, abusive, or financially dependent partners. But never see a parent talking care of kid going beyond their limits and they literally leave the kids on their own once they get adults (means the legal and social responsibility is over.)

A lot of people have children simply because that’s what society expects them to do and once they have them there is nothing they can do about them until they become adults and move out on themselves.

Sometimes, after 2–3 dates, you realise you’re simply not compatible. That’s okay—you can reject someone without being rude.

The problem is that people often use vague excuses like “I’m not ready,” “I don’t have time,” “Maybe we can be friends,” or “It’s not you, it’s me.” Some even excessively praise the person they’re rejecting.

Even when well-intentioned, this can create mixed signals and false hope. Eventually, people may just start avoiding each other instead.

You don’t need to insult someone by saying “You’re ugly,” “You’re weird,” or “You’re a loser” just to be honest.

Just be clear and kind:

“You’re genuinely a nice person, but I just didn’t feel the connection I was looking for, so I don’t think we should continue seeing each other romantically."

The point is: don’t use “I” or “you” unnecessarily. Use “I” when expressing your own perspective, and “you” when praising or criticising the other person. But when the message is simply that neither person is wrong or bad and that you just don’t work well together, use “we” as much as possible. It makes the rejection feel mutual rather than like one person is being judged or blamed.

Being polite doesn’t mean being vague. Being honest doesn’t mean being cruel.

I know some people genuinely play hard to get even when they’re interested, and yeah, that sucks. But there’s not much you can do except ignore those games.

What I find more interesting is how people assume, “They texted me, smiled at me, checked me out—they must be interested!” And when that person later says no, they convince themselves that the other person is just hesitant, confused, or playing games.

But maybe they were interested initially and simply lost interest. Or maybe they liked you but realized you weren’t romantically compatible. People’s feelings change. Attraction isn’t a contract.

I don’t think rejection before the 3rd or 4th date should be treated like some huge betrayal. You can be disappointed, sure, but before that, you barely know each other. 😂

And getting angry because someone smiled at you, talked to you, checked you out, but later left you on seen or didn’t accept your Instagram request is just ridiculous. 😭

Someone showing interest once doesn’t mean they owe you continued interest.

Sure, if you stop chasing mixed signals, you might lose someone who genuinely liked you but was too hesitant to confess or played stupid games. But honestly, that’s life. Why should one person have to do all the work—solve puzzles, decode signals, and play games—just to figure out whether someone likes them?

I’d rather lose that person anyway.

Sometimes the answer is simply: they liked you, then they didn’t. And that’s okay. 😅

Using “virgin” as an insult may seem like harmless teasing, but it reflects a deeply problematic attitude toward sex, consent, and power.

When someone uses “virgin” as an insult, the implication is usually that sexual experience makes a person more desirable, mature, masculine, feminine, powerful, or socially valuable. In other words, they are treating sexual access to another person’s body as a measure of someone’s worth.

That mindset becomes especially disturbing when we look at rape. Rape is not simply about sexual desire; it is fundamentally about violating another person’s autonomy, boundaries, and bodily integrity. Sexual violence can be used as a tool of domination, humiliation, punishment, or control.

This is why I think the cultural obsession with virginity and sexual “experience” deserves more criticism. When society teaches people that being sexually experienced makes them superior while being a virgin makes someone inferior, it creates a hierarchy where sex becomes a marker of status and power.

Obviously, using “virgin” as an insult does not automatically make someone a rapist. Most people who make such jokes will never commit sexual violence. But the underlying idea, that someone's sexual history determines their worth or social status, is worth challenging because it contributes to a culture in which sexual conquest is treated as an achievement and sexual inexperience as something shameful.

Sex should be about intimacy, desire, and personal choice, not status, masculinity, femininity, or power.

Someone being a virgin doesn't make them inferior. Someone being sexually experienced doesn't make them superior.

I mean, Hindu nationalists can be incredibly hypocritical when it comes to selective outrage.

Just imagine if the same kind of videos coming from the Kanwar Yatra were instead coming from a festival associated with a minority community, or from a protest site like Jantar Mantar. The reaction from Hindutva groups would probably be completely different. There would be endless outrage, demands for action, and accusations about the entire community.

And it isn't limited to this particular situation. Even when it comes to serious crimes, the outrage often seems highly selective. They frequently accuse others of selective outrage, yet I rarely see a group so consistently willing to apply completely different moral standards depending on who is involved.

The principle seems to be: morality and accountability are important when others are involved, but somehow become negotiable when it is their own side.

Selective morality is still hypocrisy, regardless of who is doing it.