True Left

"Is this necessarily a mutation? Could it not be a straightforward dietary consequence?"
Fair enough. I was using "mutation" as I meant the trait wasn't heritably present but acquired as a consquence of environment (diet falling under environment), but I suppose the term is not correct.

"And again, why insist on making it about diaspora vs non-diaspora? What about non-veg non-diaspora Indians vs veg diaspora Indians? If meat is what's causing it, then it's causing it whether it is consumed outside India or within India!"
I meant meat eating diasporoids consume more meat per than their meat eating non diasporoid counterparts. This is because meat is a staple of Western public school lunches, whereas in Indian schools people are banned from bringing meat even if it is their own lunch.

"You are doing it again! What if we compare between non-diaspora Indians who eat more meat and diaspora Indians who eat less meat?"
The former would be more robust no doubt. But since diaspora Indians who eat meat outnumber veg diaspora Indians, we see an overall average increase in robustness and Eurocentrism compared to mainlanders, due to meat eating diaspora Indians consuming more meat than even meat eating mainlanders.

"In that case what we are looking at is meat-eaters being more likely to emigrate from India in the first place."
Not necessarily. Only 30 percent of Indians are veg, which means even if emigration of meat eaters and vegetarians is proportional, meat eaters vastly outnumber vegetarians. (There's also the possibility that among those 30 percent, an even lesser number are heritably veg, meaning they are be veg due to cultural restrictions (which don't exist in the West), and however sincere they may be, upon emigrating and reproducing their offspring end up becoming meat eaters as the cultural restrictions no longer exist).

"Pictures"
Meat eating Diasporoid:
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E03AQHLxybOgjSFPw/profile-displayphoto-shrink_200_200/0/1713309422419?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=SgNfuAlYr5wm-m_mZDe7D66TYcvDA6tLwZRmRbKHj3s

Meat eating non diasporoid:
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D03AQGeOINtFlrdFg/profile-displayphoto-shrink_400_400/0/1613527239770?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=alHfbg2p9RxGrfE66pCisXTC-QlDLZwvjidQBt92UKA

Of course, we cannot conclusively say that meat eating is what caused the increased robustness, as correlation is not necessarily causation, but I would say it likely is.

Many Hindus believe that Juice are fighting muslims in Palestine, so they have to support Israel.

Even i did voice support a few times before here!

Know that Juice are not Hindus friends.

Juice don’t consider us Hindus as equals and are very racist to us!

Replies:

they are the fountainhead of abrahamism - their "god" yhwh is a demon and hence all abes are our enemies.

Indians in the U.S from my experience are much more open to interfaith discussions. For example, I like how Vivek tries to find common ground with Christianity using monotheism. This is a completely coherent position, as Hindu philosophies such as advaita say that God has many forms but ultimately there is only one true reality (Brahman).

The problem with Judeo Christianity, which Vivek is trying to find common ground with, is that it believes it is the only true religion. Vivek addressed this and talked about how he believes Christianity is one of the ways to attain salvation as opposed to being the only way, but this is fundamentally at odds with Judeo Christianity. This is also related to Judeo Christianity being pro Western, as it views all non Judeo Christians (mostly "non Whites") as "idolatrous heathens", and views "non Whites" as inferior unless they adopt Judeo Christianity (which involves implicitly recognizing the superiority of Western Civilization, which is why I view it as a "based" religion).

There is also the problem of creator worship (Yahweh). While Hinduism has a creator god (Brahma) he is given much less importance (and is in fact even portrayed as arrogant) compared to Brahman. This is where Gnostic Christianity comes in, but in order to promote Gnostic Christianity we must first acknowledge that Western "Christians" are simply not Christian.

Muslims in America don't exhibit this sort of exclusionist attitude, so it would be better off trying to build common ground with them. In fact, I think there is a good opportunity to build an alliance between Hindu conservatives and Muslim conservatives. For example, I saw the news of Muslim parents protesting "LGBT" books in schools. Of course, while parents shouldn't decide what their children are exposed to, I think this would be a good opportunity to raise awareness of the tyranny of the uniquely Western phenomenon that is compulsory education (which Vivek talked about, although he also framed it as "parents determine their children's education"). There is also the fact that Hindu conservatives and Muslim conservatives agree on things like abortion.

The only flaws with some Muslims is that they are exclusivist, as well as anthropocentric. For example, I have seen Muslims ridicule Hindu reverence towards cows, as well as call all Hindus "idolatrous Kafirs". There is also the fact that Muslim advocacy organizations in the United States are somewhat anti Hindu.

I did not mean we should necessarily ally on that issue, just that it could be a good segue into raising awareness of compulsory education.

I definitely agree that homophobia should not be a rallying point.

Good point. Perhaps Muslims and Hindu conservatives can ally against compulsory schooling without bringing up the LGBT issue.