Offensive Demand Or Misplaced “Liberalism”?

Picture this:

There is a group of cannibals, human nonetheless. And there is this big MNC which projects lets say another “normal” (non- cannibal, lets say the current American President, assumign he isnt) human-like figure eating a human leg with the phrase: “The snack is human”.

Now, I agree the canninbals are human. But how does that justify the ad?  I just dont get it!

Or try this: A group of radicals burning a Country’s (any country’s) flag? It is but a peice of cloth, yes. But it represents a nation and thats probably why the radical is burning it! Now I may be into the business of burning cloth, but does that mean I am justified in opposing people who are against the burning of a National flag, since it is but a piece of cloth?

And this is why I cite the examples above: Here is a misplaced demand from a blogger, on the issue of HUF demanding an apology from Burger King for their controversial (and offensive to most meat eating Hindus!)  ad.

May I point out to the blogger in question, that I am a meat eating (and loving) Hindu too. And perhaps have tried things some of which you may have only heard of or seen on Discovery Channel (ever heard of Taiwan? no, that’d be a Country). But I think the point that HUF made in its demand is that the ad depicts a “normal” representative Hindu Diety eating meat and thats why it was offensive. If they had a picture of the blogger or me for that matter, eating the Texican whopper, its a different issue altogether. (Yeah, that wouldn’t sell the burgers though, no one wants the burger brownies eat).

Take another look and he gives the issue a caste angle – Dude, be a man, stop bitching. And nowhere in the Demand from HUF, do they “claim that the Hindu religion proscribes offering meat to deities” (from the very link you provided). All they say is that most Hindus dont eat meat. Some do, varying by degree. But even meat eating Hindus observe the sanctity of God – eg: Most wouldnt eat meat when they go to a temple. The issue is that of representation, or rather misrepresentation. Lakshmi, to any Hindu represents the Godess of wealth and prosperity, a devout traditional Hindu that atleast doesn’t hog on beef.

So stop making wrong implications. And yes, stop getting MSD and his 10 followers into everything. If he sacrificed a goat, fine, but does that represent all of Hindu temples? or all of Meat eating/ vegetarian Hindus? Try that and let me know.

My point: HUF has not insulted meat eating Hindus like us through its demand. If you still feel you are wrognedd against, go, get a life or a Texican whopper or something.

Update: Burger King apologizes to Hindus for ad.

17 Responses to “Offensive Demand Or Misplaced “Liberalism”?”

  1. kowsik Says:

    There are Goddesses to whom meat is offered, these are mainly village Goddesses. Lakshmi is obviously not among those. I think we should try to find out what this Gaurav Sabnis dude is smoking!

  2. Gaurav Sabnis Says:

    Sorry for the late response. For some reason, this post did not show up in my trackbacks until today!

    Firstly, my “demand for an apology” is satirical and tongue-in-cheek, as the labels at the bottom of that post indicate. And hence, as satire tends to be, ridiculous and over-the-top itself. The post is a jab at the growing tendency of anyone and everyone to get offended at benign things and demanding apologies, when no offense was actually meant (most recent examples being the teli association and the Jagannath temple priests getting offended at Kaminey). I too made up an obviously ridiculous reason, pretended to get offended, and fake-demanded an apology.

    So I am surprised and slightly amused that you are seriously rebutting what I wrote there. For the record, I don’t actually believe that HUF has insulted meat-eating Hindus. I never was offended. And I certainly never wanted an actual apology.

    P.S. One small note though. You wrote – and nowhere in the Demand from HUF, do they “claim that the Hindu religion proscribes offering meat to deities

    FYI, I am copy-pasting here from the letter, towards the bottom of the first page –

    Most Hindus offer daily food and prayer to a personal
    deity; a ritual which is a mark of profound thanks and respect and one which proscribes the offering of meat among other things.

  3. triya Says:

    ha ha guys! he was being satirical. it was a joke and he was hardly being serious. Please at least check his blog tags before you accuse him 🙂 and c’mon lets learn to make fun of ourselves

  4. Just Some Dude Says:

    You idiot. That post is tagged “satire”, even though it’s blindingly obvious.

  5. Vishal Says:

    Dude, that was a satirical column.

  6. Visu Says:

    You are missing the whole point – Gaurav Sabnis blog post was a satire – and he tags it so at the bottom of his post – I hope people read properly before commenting on anyone – of course everyone has freedom of speech.

  7. hdcdude Says:

    I am sorry all of you missed the whole point of Gaurav Sabnis’ post. It was tongue-in-cheek satire!!

    Chill a little, and pay attention to tone and meaning, beyond just reading the words. Otherwise the rants always get ahead of the common sense.

  8. Rohan Says:

    Haha! That post is satire, not an open letter! You really should read the labels completely, before analysing the whole post.

  9. Vogon Says:

    You really should have read that post’s tags before you responded:

    Labels: satire, tongue-in-cheek


  10. Amrutha Says:

    Guys!! That was a bloody joke!! Didn’t you even see that the post is tagged satire? Or do you need a dictionary to figure out what satire means??

  11. onechance Says:

    Gaurav and the 8 others,

    For some reason, I got your comments just now.

    A satirical post isn’t something you have to tag to make known. If it is sarcastic, the post should convey its meaning. I’d have to be a real effing retard to read tags/ labels as most of you have suggested to understand the tone of a post – not an idiot as jsut some dude (?) put it.

    And sorry, this isn’t sarcastic. See, no fucking tags attached :/

  12. Rahul Says:

    With this reply you further prove your mastery of “satire” and “taking offence” 🙂

  13. onechance Says:

    Oh, do I?

    Hey but how did you conclude that? I didn’t even tag it.

  14. onechance Says:

    My email to Gaurav, on his recent post regarding this incident

    Dear Gaurav,

    This is regarding your recent post

    You have written about how people fail to get your sarcasm and how, in your own words, “any idiot can concoct the stupidest reasons for getting offended, and people will actually treat the demands for an apology seriously.” –

    My take on this is: read your post again. I mean, morons who can write *EXACTLY* as you did on that topic, exist. Now without knowing the oh-so-fucking-humorous you, how am I supposed to know whether you are a genuine retard or a sarcastic monger? And you didnt bother to exaggerate/ vituperate the obvious which may have given clues to a casual reader that you were being sarcastic

    Now, I dont know you – nor your coterie of 9 other friends who apparently know you as a person/ through your other blogs (or seriously most of whom just look like read up tags a lot). So I did not get the hang of whether you were genuinely moronic or were mocking one. And, I assumed you were the former.

    If you have still issues with that, you can keep them.

  15. kowsik Says:

    This is the problem with street-bullies. While everyone else realizes that a few of their jokes might not be funny, these people can’t avoid the temptation of making a ‘teachable moment’ out of it. And they don’t even see the irony in it.

    And K, I can’t imagine why you would even bother writing a mail pointing the farce out for what it is.

  16. Vivek Says:

    K – This is the problem with retards or idiots or morons (the real ones!), like you – can you not swallow your pride once and agree that you missed the point and laugh it off? You’re actually making yourself look like an idiot here, by trying to justify why you think his ‘satire’ wasn’t satirical enough!


  17. onechance Says:

    Vivek, really? phew man, what an astute observation! Now go, get a life.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: