I just saw a comment that genuinely crossed the line; not just a misstep, but something hateful, dehumanizing, and deeply communal. It invoked Partition violence in a way that glorified massacre. Thatâs not just a dogwhistle, thatâs a foghorn.
As most of you know, Iâm a light-touch moderator. I tolerate a lot. I believe in messy dialogue. Iâve been fair on my WhatsApp groups, fair on BP, and generally try to err on the side of letting things play out. But this? This wasnât a close call. It was a clear failure of moral language.
Even if the commenter didnât âmean it,â this kind of rhetoric has consequences. When youâre speaking about events like 1947, where entire families were destroyed, you need to speak with care, not contempt. Thereâs no room for casual violence, coded language, or historical gloating. None. Zero.
Before this commenter contributes further to the blog, he will need to fully retract and apologise for the communal language he used. Criticism is fair game. But hate speech is not. Kabir can be theatrical, yes but he does not traffic in dehumanization. The standards must be consistent, and that comment clearly crossed the line.
Please observe this on the thread. Iâm traveling, and this is an open post. Iâll be back with more soon. Iâve written a bit in my newsletter but I will expand on those.
In the meantime:
âĄď¸ Yes, it appears Pakistan is running smart diplomacy â both with Iran and the U.S.
âĄď¸ I don’t have time to share the links (plane about to take off); theyâre all Google-able.
âĄď¸ But credit where itâs due. There is no infallibility in foreign affairs. But when someone cannot stand to see Pakistan get anything right, it reveals more about their own biases than about geopolitics.
This isnât about defending states or “sides”; itâs about defending basic decency in discourse.