|
Effectronica posted:I don't, subjectively, experience any sense of dehumanization from telephone calls. Nor do I feel that violence against someone is more acceptable when talking to them on the phone. So your hypothesis needs to overcome this experience in order to convince me that telephones represent an unacceptable level of dehumanization and should be banned, in order to ensure that niqabs represent an unacceptable level of dehumanization. Actually no, none of that follows.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Let me counter with a Zen Koan: what is the sound of one man interacting? Because that's the sound of you, in your establishment, interacting with the woman who is wearing a burka, and is not there because you refuse to allow her in. Although I guess slamming the door in someone's face is some kind of interaction. I prefer the state telling her that she simply cannot wear the veil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:25
|
|
Miltank posted:Actually no, none of that follows. Objectively, a telephone is more dehumanizing than a niqab, removing facial expression totally and removing the domain of body language that still exists with a niqab. Thus, in order for a niqab to be unacceptably dehumanizing, a telephone conversation must be even worse, and if we cannot tolerate the niqab, we cannot tolerate the phone either. Furthermore, you aren't even trying to convince me that you're right!
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I prefer the state telling her that she simply cannot wear the veil. This is going to be a very hard law to enforce, particularly on Halloween.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
I often find the people saying that burkas should be banned for many reasons, but in the end it comes down to that person just not wanting to see people in foreign attire. You know, because they're racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:I often find the people saying that burkas should be banned for many reasons, but in the end it comes down to that person just not wanting to see people in foreign attire. You know, because they're racist. I think the most interesting statistic about the burqa in France is that before the ban, the most common wearers were white converts to Islam. So it was literally a "stealing our White Women" motivation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Getting 'The State' to ban foreign attire in a populist move takes any blame from the ones who want it banned out of said fear. Classic tactics for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Going through some sharia-marriage cases in the US, the biggest issues brought forward seems to be the dowry and arguments over that (big loving surprise). The biggest issue from a western perspective to all of them is the lack of no-fault divorce for women which, while not enforceable, when you bring in the dowry contracts or some kind of fee structure, is a massive problem. Best solution is to do is 1) rule that any religious law is completely irrelevant, and does not have to be considered 2) pre or post-nuptial written agreement, that lay out terms without reference to islamic law, must exist and be signed to be enforced 3) remove the ability of any marriage contract to waive the right of no fault divorce (no divorce fees, dowries are considered gifts). Maybe to make the whole thing easier, get the government to publish a bunch of already drafted agreements with some blanks to be filled in. I feel a similar approach to other sharia ares would probably be the best way to get some consistent rulings. The big issue are laws of foreign states that do follow islamic law, and people possibly both agreeing to follow that law as a work-around using comity. My take is that that's kind of abusing a principle for different states to try and get along (by not voiding each other all the time), so that sort of business shouldn't be respected. Volkerball posted:Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are live at Harvard discussing "Islam and the future of tolerance." Stream is here if anyone is interested. rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
I really struggle to see why the law should treat a woman in a niqab and me in my full-face motorcycle helmet any differently. Surely any argument about depersonalisation or security should apply perfectly equally to both, but nobody gives a flying gently caress about me hurtling around town perched on top of an explosion-powered death machine with my face covered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I really struggle to see why the law should treat a woman in a niqab and me in my full-face motorcycle helmet any differently. Surely any argument about depersonalisation or security should apply perfectly equally to both, but nobody gives a flying gently caress about me hurtling around town perched on top of an explosion-powered death machine with my face covered. Surely this is an argument for making Islam more radical? As in, mandatory explosion-powered death machine with every niqab, sick wheelies get bonus points?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Missed this, hope they put a youtube out. Though I often find harris insufferable, it may still be worth watching. I agree, and I still thought it was interesting. The debate never switches over to the existence of god except for one question in Q&A, and Harris actually impressed me with a message of surprising tolerance towards Islam once he wasn't being put in a position where he was supposed to discredit it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Going through some sharia-marriage caes in the US, the biggest issues brought forward seems to be the dowry and arguments over that (big loving surprise). The biggest issue from a western perspective to all of them is the lack of no-fault divorce for women which, while not enforceable, when you bring in the dowry contracts or some kind of fee structure, is a massive problem. While this strikes me as a pretty good specific solution, maybe barring some quibbles about exactly how to structure the dowry in a fashion that makes Muslim couples comfortable, even just cutting out all marriage cases from arbitration (admittedly mostly targeted at Muslim arbitration, because nobody these days raises much fuss about Orthodox Jews or weird Christian denominations using it) is probably a pretty tricky subject to broach in the US, legislatively speaking. Abolishing arbitration as a parallel legal mechanism altogether is simply not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Should have realized SA autists might not recognize the importance of faces in human interaction. those drat scheming arabs will use the anonymity to deceive and subvert western civilization by praying to their moon god in secret
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
SurrealityCheck posted:Surely this is an argument for making Islam more radical? As in, mandatory explosion-powered death machine with every niqab, sick wheelies get bonus points? Hell, I'd join.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
SurrealityCheck posted:Surely this is an argument for making Islam more radical? As in, mandatory explosion-powered death machine with every niqab, sick wheelies get bonus points? I watched someone try to do dawah for two hours last week and this post was significantly more effective and less gross tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Why does this poo poo always turn into arguments over the burqa/niqab? People go to arbitration because it's cheaper than courts, which is fine. If disputes can be resolved fairly for less, good. What I don't like is having either courts or arbitration having to deal with a legal systems that are not ours. Shits needs to be done properly under our system, not another system. SurrealityCheck posted:Surely this is an argument for making Islam more radical? rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Trying to have the government regulate what people wear is even more retarded than trying to have them regulate what substances people put in their bodies. It doesn't mean we can't criticize how ridiculous burqas are though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
waaah i cant see ur face ur clothes are triggering me *cries*
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And yet one functions by turning its wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness and the other is an uncomfortable patriarchal norm. High heels have more in common with neckties than burkas. Both actually do that first thing, if you think about it for a minute. ZZ Top wrote a song about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Trying to "reclaim" the burqa as a feminist icon is as ludicrously stupid as attempting to reclaim FGM or sati. The burqa is a tool of the subjugation of women, the fact that as a highly visible sign of Muslim piety it's often targeted by xenophobes doesn't change that undeniable fact.Killin_Like_Bronson posted:I often find the people saying that burkas should be banned for many reasons, but in the end it comes down to that person just not wanting to see people in foreign attire. You know, because they're racist. One might suggest that the self-styled leftist or liberal defending the burqa is engaging in a bit of Orientalist fetishizing of the mystery and exoticism of foreign couture, they just like to imagine 'real' Muslims wearing foreign attire because they identify authentic Muslim identity as being alien and distinct from Western identity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Or, you know, some of us don't really care how desperate western dudes are to ogle women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I agree, and I still thought it was interesting. The debate never switches over to the existence of god except for one question in Q&A, and Harris actually impressed me with a message of surprising tolerance towards Islam once he wasn't being put in a position where he was supposed to discredit it. Maajid Nawaz is an incredibly smooth talker and he stole the show throughout. Maybe I'll get his autobiography soon. Edit: Also, when he deconstructed Blumenthal's (refused to say his name) bullshit, goddamn. 
Immortan fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Trying to "reclaim" the burqa as a feminist icon is as ludicrously stupid as attempting to reclaim FGM or sati. The burqa is a tool of the subjugation of women, the fact that as a highly visible sign of Muslim piety it's often targeted by xenophobes doesn't change that undeniable fact. Thus these women must be protected from xenophobes by restricting what they can wear or do, like a xenophobe would. The Insect Court posted:One might suggest that the self-styled leftist or liberal defending the burqa is engaging in a bit of Orientalist fetishizing of the mystery and exoticism of foreign couture, they just like to imagine 'real' Muslims wearing foreign attire because they identify authentic Muslim identity as being alien and distinct from Western identity. Or consider this bombshell: They can wear whatever they want to wear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Since people are talking about the burqa ban in France, it might be interesting to take a look at who exactly lobbied the most for it. Spoiler alert: they're women from immigrant communities from Islamic countries. Names like Fadela Amara ("Despite being a practising Muslim, Amara was active in supporting the expulsion from French secondary schools of young Muslim women who wear the hijab, and in supporting the 2003 law on this question") and Samira Bellil. I think you'll find their motivation was quite far from "we must stop teh moossulmen from stealing our white wimmenz" and "we desperate western men want to be able to ogle".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
The moderate debate. I've long held a position on it for a simple reason: All ultra religious Islamic people are, in fact, probably dangerous. However, so are all ultra religious Christians. Why? Well, religion is frankly ugly and full of terrible things. Lots and lots of terrible things. When you see extremist groups in the US screaming "You are all the Godless ones, we are following his word!" (Non-Islamic ones).. here's the problem: I can't disagree with them, at least not about the last part. The bottom line is religion we tolerate and the so called peaceful image we put on it is accomplished by ignoring parts of it as outdated or calling it interpretations and trying to explain away why we shouldn't, say, take slaves anymore; nobody wants to talk about how the bible clearly endorsed slavery and even set rules on how to treat your slaves. But it's in there. It's not retcon'ed. There's no "God declares this is a bad idea" section in the New Testament that, again, not every religion has. If anything, if you don't believe the Bible is divine (which I sure don't), the New Testament strikes me as something written to try to curtail and ultra violent religion with some peaceful content, even though it's kind of incompatible with what came before... so back to the Islamic debate. Bottom line is if you run into someone who believes they should follow the Koran to the letter and that there is not room for modern society to edit the book, that is horrifying; but again, this could be any religion. This is partly why I don't get religious people. If you really truly believe in it as much as you confess, why are you OK with society saying "Well ignore this part, and don't do this part?" How can you be a tolerant and moderate <insert religion here> when you're effectively ignoring huge parts of your supposedly sacred text? It doesn't add up. I'm not a believer, but if I truly believed, and I mean TRULY believed.. why wouldn't I bet an extremist? Because - again, if - I truly believed, anything that happens in this life doesn't matter, as long as you appease your deity. So yeah. Not exactly a Political Science analysis, but I am kind of tired of this bullshit. If you have to hack and chop up a religion to make it compatible with the real world, instead of doing that and calling anyone who goes with it a "moderate" maybe we should look at the core religion and discuss that instead; namely all of them. ED: Also I am a bit saddened by the rapid spread if Islam as it's just been exploding. Because I finally, finally thought with a lot of religions dying off, maybe in a few generations we'd stop basing policy and life off and pandering to ancient texts. But now it looks like we're in for many more generations of that. It feels like a huge setback. Blazing Ownager fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:This is partly why I don't get religious people. If you really truly believe in it as much as you confess, why are you OK with society saying "Well ignore this part, and don't do this part?" How can you be a tolerant and moderate <insert religion here> when you're effectively ignoring huge parts of your supposedly sacred text? It doesn't add up. I'm not a believer, but if I truly believed, and I mean TRULY believed.. why wouldn't I bet an extremist? Because - again, if - I truly believed, anything that happens in this life doesn't matter, as long as you appease your deity. No True Adherent. Then we get to the wonderful, endless debate about the exact definition of a religious adherent and exactly what they must do in order to be called a 'true adherent'. Fact is faith and adherence have been fluid since religion began, adapting (sometimes badly, sometimes disastrously) to changes in human society and is as much a product and part of the 'real world' as pretty much anything else produced by human culture. At it's base form it's part of a person's identity, and can you really deny a person their identity? (well you can but it's evil and at best unethical). It's like saying Mallards are the only true duck because only they walk, look and quack in some arbitrarily defined fashion befitting of a true duck. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I think you'll find their motivation was quite far from "we must stop teh moossulmen from stealing our white wimmenz" and "we desperate western men want to be able to ogle". I'm aware, I was responding to captain crank-it's cute little strawman. As for the legislation in question, I think many of the proposers had their heart in the right place, but I'm not sure everyone else saw it that way. And as others said, in liberalised societies, especially ones where other women do not wear the burqa and the men in society have not become immoral molesters, the tendency is for the wearing of the burqa to fade out by itself. While I agree no-one should be forced to wear one, I'm sceptical that banning it in public will actually prevent it being worn. Wasn't there a study that showed it just led to the women being forced to stay indoors instead? Or am I confusing someone's anecdote with research?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:ED: Also I am a bit saddened by the rapid spread if Islam as it's just been exploding. Because I finally, finally thought with a lot of religions dying off, maybe in a few generations we'd stop basing policy and life off and pandering to ancient texts. But now it looks like we're in for many more generations of that. It feels like a huge setback. Christianity was dying out in the early 20th century. American corporations deliberately revived it during the Great Depression to protect themselves by firmly interlinking Christianity and Capitalism. That's why you get these free-market Christians who completely disavow Jesus's kindness to the poor while claiming to love him. Marx's opiate of the masses indeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
quote:This is partly why I don't get religious people. If you really truly believe in it as much as you confess, why are you OK with society saying "Well ignore this part, and don't do this part?" How can you be a tolerant and moderate <insert religion here> when you're effectively ignoring huge parts of your supposedly sacred text? It doesn't add up. I'm not a believer, but if I truly believed, and I mean TRULY believed.. why wouldn't I bet an extremist? Because - again, if - I truly believed, anything that happens in this life doesn't matter, as long as you appease your deity. i mean, it's pretty much not the word of god by definition, since a lot of it is people writing down their sometimes contradictory experiences of the same event. IMO when fundamentalists say they are following the true ways of the religion it's pretty much bullshit. they're picking and choosing the same as everyone else, and that always comes out when push comes to shove. How people choose to act in the name of their religion usually says more about them than about the religion. Where I do think religion gets mixed up is since people consider their faith an important part of their identity, someone saying ' you must do X to be a real true Christian' (etc.) is extremely dangerous. if they consider that person reliable they'll roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:
Name me an ideology anywhere where everyone is 100% consistent and I'll call you a liar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Name me an ideology anywhere where everyone is 100% consistent and I'll call you a liar. Mathematics
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Name me an ideology anywhere where everyone is 100% consistent and I'll call you a liar. Economics. CONSISTENTLY WRONG THAT IS
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The ideas that underlie heels being empowering are also rooted in their original patriarchal purpose. Didn't men wear them first to make keeping them their feet in a horses stirrups while you use your Lance standing up easier? Does that count as patriarchy? Women have been trying to dress like men for hundreds of years, but we are always one step ahead 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Both actually do that first thing, if you think about it for a minute. ZZ Top wrote a song about it. I've thought about it for more than a minute and you are still wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Luckily, mathematics isn't complete, so it's okay for it to be consistent.Rigged Death Trap posted:No True Adherent. That's kind of why I don't want religious arbitration. Really my ideal is 1) grab a bunch of muslim jurists 2) get them to list their interpretations of sharia 3) go through that list with a red marker "fine, fine, fine, bullshit, fine fine, bullshit, etc." 3) create a bunch of contracts based on that, written in such a way as outsiders of islam could understand them fully 4) publish. Why? Because I want the arbiters to be people outside the Islamic community, who won't necessarily understand the intricacies of Islamic law. Why? Because clerics have a vested interest in certain outcomes over others, (in particular, ones that preserve the power structures/seniority/traditions already existing in that community), and therefore make bad arbiters. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I really struggle to see why the law should treat a woman in a niqab and me in my full-face motorcycle helmet any differently. Surely any argument about depersonalisation or security should apply perfectly equally to both, but nobody gives a flying gently caress about me hurtling around town perched on top of an explosion-powered death machine with my face covered. But you take the helmet off when walking around and interacting with people so its not a very good analogy is it? E: pretty sure my manager would ask you to take your helmet off if you wore it into the shop, but nobody has ever been rude enough to try it. Miltank fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:While I agree no-one should be forced to wear one, I'm sceptical that banning it in public will actually prevent it being worn. Wasn't there a study that showed it just led to the women being forced to stay indoors instead? Or am I confusing someone's anecdote with research? Let us rejoice, we can take comfort that 'maybe' over a long span of time this cultural practice will be naturally eradicated. Until then let us celebrate our tolerant society and it's willingness to permit a few generations of women with the misfortune of being born from a tribal culture to be condemned to their culturally restrictive ghettos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think the most interesting statistic about the burqa in France is that before the ban, the most common wearers were white converts to Islam. Is there an article on this? I'd actually like to learn more on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
rudatron posted:
I think this would be a good way of going about it. But I think you an I both know that your strategy effectively removes one of the largest factors that the Sharia advocates want. The community focused, local, democratic, and inconsistent an sexually imbalanced aspect to Sharia law is pretty foundational. I wonder how often a woman would be in a situation to arbitrate the application of Sharia law? Sethex fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:37
|
|