I primarily referred to individuals within this forum. My examples are drawn exclusively from discussions here.

Point 0, this illustrates that even when there is an indirect reference to a God or Prophet, individuals in this forum judge such references as not overly sensitive but rather a rightful cause for feeling insulted. Conversely, when it comes to Muslims, non-Muslims can openly insult God and the Prophet, yet such reactions are labeled as overly sensitive.

Point 3, Within two days, they were already suspended from work and may be facing termination. Then MCMC issues notice of intent to suspend licence of Era FM operator. But what happen to Cecilia Yap (she intentionally insult)? Just got RM10,000 fine? "Law enforcement has also been selective in prosecution make this worst." Yeah, it is true. Malay get harsher treatment.

Point 4:
You are missing the point. There is no insult happening because they are not mocking the kavadi dance.

Let me tell you a story involving an India Indian client I interacted with.

We were having friendly non business conversation and topic about food came up. As with natural conversations, he asked what kind of food I is my favourite and I mentioned steak without thinking from religious angle, just normal conversation. Clearly no intention to insult or mock.

Client started getting angry and insulted because I say I eat beef. I apologised and his friend, who has better understanding of other cultures, explained it is normal for non-Hindus to consume beef. Not like I'm asking him to eat beef. Client started to calm down but was still unhappy.

Neither of us were right nor wrong yet insult happened. It is still an insult no matter how you look at it.

Nope. An insult is still an insult, regardless of intent. However, if the person did not actually do what you think they did, then the feeling of being insulted is based on your own perception. In that case, it is not truly an insult—just a misunderstanding or a lack of certain details.

It's like the analogy of fish steak and beef steak:

A beef steak means a beef steak—no matter the intent, it remains an insult.

A fish steak misunderstood as a beef steak is simply a misunderstanding. Only the other side perceives it as an insult.

What do you think?

I'm asking for your opinion. I cannot presume to know what your opinion would be.

Or do you not really have one?

Who decides what is an insult, and what is a misunderstanding?

The alleged insulting party, the insulted party, or third party commentaries like yourself?

Please carry on your tertindas and hypocrite mentality.
He won't. As you can see he fell in love with me. I asked him the same thing and he turned into tertindas karen and picked a side for me based on my story

Is that the best you guys can say?

@knumskul, you are ignorant. Don't downplay it and pusing. You asked where the proof is. I already highlighted it very big for you.

@differ, I already said my thoughts, but like I said, you oversimplify things.

What happened after the earlier half of the video resurfaced? You all just made assumptions from a viral video with bad intentions behind it. It’s easier for you all to be influenced. Of course la you guy will only focus the viral one. Because senang kena tipu.. ha..ha..

Go research the video la... This is bout the video.

The viral video was edited to portray an insult. Niat jahat. So the intention of the video already bad. But the people in the video? The one who watch the unedited version? The one who watch the original video before the incident? Tak boleh la nak sekali harung with who Q?

Mostly people yang tak tahu cerita dari awal akan assume insult happen. Sebab video dah di edit. Ada niat jahat. Jadi, kalau tengok original lepas tu pun, dah ada bias. So, nak decide camna? Biasness dah ada walaupun the original does not has the intention.

Faham ke tak? Memang tak boleh la nak direct tanya who decides. Tengak keadaan.

I want to know your opinion first la. I thought I already explain everything.

Wait, didn't I ask you before? Hmm... never mind.

Is it wrong for me to want to know your opinion first? At least that way, I can understand your stance.

I think the dishonest one here is you. You expect me to respond objectively after I've already written so much, only to have someone mock my effort as if it were a thesis.

So, what is your opinion?

As I mentioned, the issue is about the Paquetá dance video. The MCMC has already made its decision, so just accept je la...

And yet you didn't answer.