|
V. Illych L. posted:ok then i'm honestly fine with a bit of totalitarianism tbh That's obvious, yeah
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this doesn't really follow, and does not seem to hold up to scrutiny Your implicit assumption is that ethnicities are rigid. For example, the Hui People were considered Han until fairly recently, and now they are not. They (the Hui) also consider non-religious Hui to still be Hui, even though they are functionally identical to Han.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
i mean, at a certain point you get farcical results from a "non-totalitarian" approach where you cannot use state violence to do things because it would be enforcing ideological discipline on society, e.g. using the secret police to blow up a hate group which a small minority of the members have been using to organise violent crime
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your implicit assumption is that ethnicities are rigid. i fail to see the relevance of this example to the general and well-known repression by chinese authorities of groups ranging from christian sects to the falun gong
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:People have a big ole hardon for French style secularism, despite the fact that France in the 1800s was not a particularly successful state, had a very weak democracy and a weak economy, and arguably still does to this day for the same reasons as then Would France have been a more successful state if it went back to the good 'ol days of the Church running roughshod over everything else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i fail to see the relevance of this example to the general and well-known repression by chinese authorities of groups ranging from christian sects to the falun gong The Hui are Han. Then they weren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i mean, at a certain point you get farcical results from a "non-totalitarian" approach where you cannot use state violence to do things because it would be enforcing ideological discipline on society, e.g. using the secret police to blow up a hate group which a small minority of the members have been using to organise violent crime No, arresting people for violent, organized crime is not an ideological act. Unless you mean, like, arresting people who profess beliefs similar to unrelated individuals who have committed crimes and also profess similar beliefs. Which makes very little sense icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Would France have been a more successful state if it went back to the good 'ol days of the Church running roughshod over everything else? The Church in Ancien Regime France was pretty well subordinated to the state, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallicanism But yes, France would probably have been better off with less rigid and intolerant ideologies and more decentralization
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, arresting people for violent, organized crime is not an ideological act. Unless you mean, like, arresting people who profess beliefs similar to unrelated individuals who have committed crimes and also profess similar beliefs. Which makes very little sense well in this hypothetical one is destroying the organisation they were using to organise and motivate their crimes, despite the majority of members not doing anything illegal and, indeed, the organisation itself never formally acknowledging such acts, though i grant you that it's not a terribly efficient hypothetical computer parts posted:The Hui are Han. Then they weren't. ok. this does nothing to support your position which is currently that all modern, ongoing religious repression is to some degree connected with racism
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well in this hypothetical one is destroying the organisation they were using to organise and motivate their crimes, despite the majority of members not doing anything illegal and, indeed, the organisation itself never formally acknowledging such acts, though i grant you that it's not a terribly efficient hypothetical This is something a normal legal system would have no trouble dealing with You seem to just have a huge boner for arresting people for thoughtcrime V. Illych L. posted:ok. this does nothing to support your position which is currently that all modern, ongoing religious repression is to some degree connected with racism Religion, especially minority ones, very often acquire the characteristics of / turn into separate ethnicities. For example, the Hui in China. Probably also Jews in medieval Europe, although the question of how many were converts as opposed to a massive human migration is a giant political slapfight icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This is something a normal legal system would have no trouble dealing with most legal systems have no trouble dealing with it, but it seems as though this would be totalitarian in your terms
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
my point being, literally every modern society seems to be totalitarian by your standards
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:most legal systems have no trouble dealing with it, but it seems as though this would be totalitarian in your terms No it wouldn't, because breaking up organized crime isn't considered an ideological act by anyone except you
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Religion, especially minority ones, very often acquire the characteristics of / turn into separate ethnicities. For example, the Hui in China. Probably also Jews in medieval Europe, although the question of how many were converts as opposed to a massive human migration is a giant political slapfight this, again, is not relevant to the discussion at hand
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Not really, totalitarianism means authoritarianism plus ideological motivation. The state dictating to individuals what religious beliefs and practices than can do for ideological reasons is literally the definition of totalitarianism That's really defining totalitarianism down. The state outright banning religion would be totalitarian, because that's about as invasive an intrusion into the private sphere as you can get, but the state banning certain expressions of religion in public is authoritarian at most. Taking a long-term approach of social engineering through a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage a secular trend isn't really either of those things, though it could still be alarming to people who disagree with the goal. Turkey banning public expressions of Islam for decades is an example of a restriction on religion that wasn't motivated by racism too, by the way. I don't think the current rise of political Islam in Turkey is necessarily a reaction against that so much as part of a broader trend in the region, and one that was successfully bottled up (yes, at a great cost to personal liberty) for quite some time, but it's admittedly not a prime example of harsh bans being effective anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No it wouldn't, because breaking up organized crime isn't considered an ideological act by anyone except you how is 'crime' defined i mean, hiding jews from the gas chambers was a crime under the nazi regime, i'd consider breaking up a jew-hiding group pretty ideological
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
i am also not certain how one can have authoritarianism without ideology of some sort backing it up, so it's difficult to see how any centralised authority is non-totalitarian berlin would be pretty horrified, i'm sure, at you equating non-entities like the various european autocrats with the likes of stalin
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:how is 'crime' defined You're the one who came with that lovely hypothetical, ask a lawyer. Defining murder or robbery as a crime is not ideological, defining having the wrong / a religion as a crime is Unless you think that having robbery be illegal is morally equivalent to banning religious practice in public
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You're the one who came with that lovely hypothetical, ask a lawyer. Defining murder or robbery as a crime is not ideological, defining having the wrong / a religion as a crime is why is this different
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Hey. People can be skumbag authoritarians about Muslim women's clothing without being a racist. And not being racist doesn't make approving of authoritarian bans on certain clothing not lovely. Like I don't see how the phrase "people should be free to wear what they want" is a contentious sentence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Hey. People can be skumbag authoritarians about Muslim women's clothing without being a racist. And not being racist doesn't make approving of authoritarian bans on certain clothing not lovely. building on a previous line of reasoning, wearing full neo-nazi get-up and hanging around synagogues would be, at best, frowned upon in most societies and considered an implicit threat in some
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
without further comparison to religious headwear or what have you, but that as a principle is actually not as easy to defend as one might want
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:why is this different If you really don't know, I'm not sure what to tell you at this point
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
well i mean there's ideological judgements being made, but you seem to think that murder &c is somehow beyond ideology so i'm curious as to how you rationalise this
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:building on a previous line of reasoning, wearing full neo-nazi get-up and hanging around synagogues would be, at best, frowned upon in most societies and considered an implicit threat in some I mean is you're in a synagogue that's private property and you can be ejected. If you're on public property then i have no problem with someone wearing a nazi uniform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:building on a previous line of reasoning, wearing full neo-nazi get-up and hanging around synagogues would be, at best, frowned upon in most societies and considered an implicit threat in some To tone it down a fair bit, even wearing a 'refugees go home' t-shirt would be more than enough to set off some of the defenders of personal liberty in this thread. Context matters, and that shirt would be more than just an unfortunate fashion choice, just as the burqa is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
just to be clear i think banning the burqa, as a concrete measure, is stupid and unproductive, but the underlying ideological discussions are often pretty meaty and bring a lot of the contradictions of vulgar liberalism to the fore
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The Church in Ancien Regime France was pretty well subordinated to the state, actually. The church and the state were thick as thieves and the question of the true extent of the pope's authority has been endlessly controversial. You can't disentangle the Church from the state of the Ancien Regime. Its also probably worth noting that throughout the majority of the 1800s France was not a secular state and the conception of Laïcité that you aren't very fond of didn't exist. The Third Republic only came into existence during the 1870s and most of the previous 50 years had seen one monarch or another who tended to cultivate close relations with the church. Napoleon the Third in particular buttered up to the pope to a sometimes ridiculous degree, safeguarding his position in Italy militarily and supporting Catholics in the Middle East. Prior to that the resurrected Capetian monarchy made a fair stab at returning things as closely as possible to the old ways. As much as anything this is where these problems sprang from. Republican hatred towards religion didn't come out of the blue, the Catholic Church at every opportunity supported Monarchists who tended to be very hostile to Liberal and Democratic values. The Syllabus of Errors in particular just ended up being a blunt 'gently caress You' towards Liberal reform throughout Europe, and the Church's choices of allies basically made it as clear as day to most French Liberals that trying to find common ground with them basically meant installing another king, abandoning anything approaching Liberal reform and handing over most of the reins of the State back to the Church. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The church and the state were thick as thieves and the question of the true extent of the pope's authority has been endlessly controversial. You can disentangle the Church from the state of the Ancien Regime. The Church in France was actually an early supporter of the revolution. Until the Republicans decided that the clergy should swear an oath to the state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The Church in France was actually an early supporter of the revolution. Until the Republicans decided that the clergy should swear an oath to the state. Its more complex than that, they supported some of the reform movements that would evolve into outright revolution, but there tended to be great division within the church over what they did and did not support. Bishops and Archbishops tended to be drawn from the same strata as the Second Estate and had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Obviously they had the most control over the direction of policy but lowly priests and curates, who were often commoners, were often great allies of the Third Estate thanks to their direct connection with the parishioners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:a big reason iranian women lashed out against feminism after the revolution was the shah's wife had pushed women's lib heavily and thus it was seen as some kind of western plot Well either that or instead of Iranian women lashing out against feminism it was Iranian women getting lashed(literally) by the Khomeini regime but I suppose we can introduce the hypothesis that those exotic Persians don't have the same desire to have autonomy and control over their own lives that white Western women do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:To tone it down a fair bit, even wearing a 'refugees go home' t-shirt would be more than enough to set off some of the defenders of personal liberty in this thread. Context matters, and that shirt would be more than just an unfortunate fashion choice, just as the burqa is. So what's the context that makes wearing a I HATE FOREIGNERS t-shirt acceptable? You're acting like Muslims wear religious garments as a personal attack on you and not, you know, because of their religion. EDIT: Also I'm not sure where this "unreasonable oppressive liberal" narrative is coming from. I'm sorry the mean old left is judging you for making GBS threads on Muslims. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:So what's the context that makes wearing a I HATE FOREIGNERS t-shirt acceptable? I don't think the t-shirt is advisable either, and someone who wears it is a valid target of criticism. I'm just saying the freedom that allows one is the same freedom that allows the other. That's literally true in the US because of the first amendment, but in this thread it would be true because criticizing fashion is forbidden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think the t-shirt is advisable either, and someone who wears it is a valid target of criticism. I'm just saying the freedom that allows one is the same freedom that allows the other. That's literally true in the US because of the first amendment, but in this thread it would be true because criticizing fashion is forbidden. You're talking yourself in circles. EDIT: Also interesting that you brought up the US, because "free speech!" is usually the first defense of people saying blatantly hateful poo poo. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:You're talking yourself in circles. I oppose bans in both cases even though both might be illegal in some European countries. I also would prefer to live in a society in which both are uncommon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I oppose bans in both cases even though both might be illegal in some European countries. I also would prefer to live in a society in which both are uncommon. And I think that there's a difference in importance between religious dress and some rear end in a top hat's "WE DON'T PRECIATE YUR KIND ROUND HERE" t poo poo. There's a difference! #1 is because of a religion that he or she has modeled their life around. #2 is Shithead Dave from down the block who don't like the looks of them browns. This doesn't mean that all Muslims are magically safe from all criticism or whatever the hyperbole squad thinks they're being oppressed by. It just means that making GBS threads on Muslims because of how they dress is real dumb. I mean in this very thread there's a number of people bristling at the idea that they might be forced to treat Muslims with basic human decency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:And I think that there's a difference in importance between religious dress and some rear end in a top hat's "WE DON'T PRECIATE YUR KIND ROUND HERE" t poo poo. I understand why some people might wish to collaborate with patriarchal structures to oppress women because traditions, particularly those derived from religion, are important to them. I just think those people are conservatives rather than liberals. Liberals may accept that it's functionally impossible to eliminate the negative impact of those often coercive structures through coercive government mandates which are also coercive, but they should still view it as a worthy goal to pursue through less direct means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
For someone who supposedly hates patriarchy you sure cant stop obsessing over what french women should or shouldn't wear and suggest they should have no choice in the matter, even though you're not affected by it in any conceivable way.
Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
I guess I just find it hard to believe that many women are really making uncoerced decisions to be near-slaves utterly dependent on male guardians since they're essentially unemployable non-persons in public if they cover their faces in a modern Western country. I totally understand why religiously or culturally conservative immigrants don't all want to suddenly adopt Western fashion and immodesty, and why forcing them to do so would be bad. That said, some accommodation to the reality of living in a society in which women are equals should absolutely be encouraged. I don't know how that's even controversial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:I guess I just find it hard to believe that many women are really making uncoerced decisions to be near-slaves utterly dependent on male guardians since they're essentially unemployable non-persons in public if they cover their faces in a modern Western country. I forgot that using email and telephones requires an uncovered face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 06:26
|
|