|
computer parts posted:Those examples you mentioned died out, because they weren't racially influenced. Al-Saqr posted: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. As far as I can tell, Sinteres' argument is basically that religious items can't be discussed as an entirely private thing, because religion is a social force. Thus religious clothing or accessories aren't merely a matter of individual style, but also a social signal, which onlookers then interpret according to their own values. Meaning that while someone raised in a liberal environment might just read it as saying nothing more than "I'm Christian/Muslim/Jewish", someone raised within a religiously oppressive environment could read it as "You better fall in line too, or else..", which then compels them to wear those items too, perpetuating the culture of oppression through their own oppression. You might not believe the latter is a big issue, or that the state prohibiting the wearing of that kind of item is more oppressive than the religiously oppressive environment (which could even vary between countries), but then that should really be the argument and not that people shouldn't care about what they perceive as oppressive. computer parts posted:I forgot that using email and telephones requires an uncovered face.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
But they're not blind?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
I doubt that many companies are willing to hire a person who wears a Burka.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:But they're not blind?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It means a particular kind of secularism which seeks to use the power of the state to roll back the influence of religion on individuals as much as possible because it is seen as a negative influence on rational individualist values Actually laicite is cool and good. Religious organisations belong in the dumpster of history, everyone can believe what they want without being influenced by groups that specifically exist to promote a non-factual belief, usually coupled with or as a consequence of the people in charge wanting more influence or power. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 08:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:As far as I can tell, Sinteres' argument is basically that religious items can't be discussed as an entirely private thing, because religion is a social force. Thus religious clothing or accessories aren't merely a matter of individual style, but also a social signal, which onlookers then interpret according to their own values. Meaning that while someone raised in a liberal environment might just read it as saying nothing more than "I'm Christian/Muslim/Jewish", someone raised within a religiously oppressive environment could read it as "You better fall in line too, or else..", which then compels them to wear those items too, perpetuating the culture of oppression through their own oppression. You might not believe the latter is a big issue, or that the state prohibiting the wearing of that kind of item is more oppressive than the religiously oppressive environment (which could even vary between countries), but then that should really be the argument and not that people shouldn't care about what they perceive as oppressive. This. As a neat way to sidestep the "ban burka oppression"/"you hate freedumb" debate, I like that fashion designers now incorporate things like the veil into their products, because it normalises these types of clothing for people who want to wear them as a type of clothing and thereby lessen their importance as a statement of political or religious belief. In principle, this could be extended to burkas and other types of more obvious religious garb (though as mentioned full face coverage might not be popular for practical reasons). I'm sure some idiot will now come out of the woodwork to get angry about how this is totally ~*~cultural appropriation~*~.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Actually laicite is cool and good. Religious organisations belong in the dumpster of history, everyone can believe what they want without being influenced by groups that specifically exist to promote a non-factual belief, usually coupled with or as a consequence of the people in charge wanting more influence or power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
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 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. You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions here over how a person might live based on their clothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Not really, totalitarianism means authoritarianism plus ideological motivation. No, totalitarianism is defined by being total, with the state having control on everything -- not recognizing the difference between public and private spheres. It doesn't need an ideological motivation, beside the leaders being control freaks. And inversely, ideologically motivated authoritarianism does not necessarily extend to seeking control of the private sphere, meaning it isn't necessarily totalitarian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
While we are on the topic of European meddling in personal religious and moral affairs... Raising your kid as a vegan could soon be a crime in Italy
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
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. Only because psychotic racists like you think they're evil if they do that. Women who dress unfashionably have plenty of jobs over here in America. One of the cashiers at the local CVS wears a veil and is as good as any other cashier who works there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/764406143104024581 https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/764405491195838468 The hills are alive with the sound of music! Die Fahne hoch....
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:While we are on the topic of European meddling in personal religious and moral affairs... No it won't be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
So are people ready to talk about the implications of laws targeting religious minorities in eruope or are they still working on the legality and morality of fashion choices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
In my opinion euopeans starting to make laws against minority groups has a bad history that I would not like to see repeated.
drilldo squirt fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:While we are on the topic of European meddling in personal religious and moral affairs... Actually, yes, depriving children of necessary nutrients is child abuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Actually, yes, depriving children of necessary nutrients is child abuse. Laws already exist to handle parents who don't provide enough nutrition. A child can get all the nutrients they need and still be vegan. It just requires more careful planning by the parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Laws already exist to handle parents who don't provide enough nutrition. Pretty much no one can actually get all the nutrients they need while being fully vegan without a ton of money and careful planning - and even then due to what you need to do it's very easy to fall behind on many things, particularly vitamin B12 and some amino acids/proteins. When that happens as an adult it's kinda whatever, you're miserable and sick for a while. When you do it with kids, especially infants, that leads to permanent developmental problems due to effectively being starved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Or because they were genocided out of existence. This is a lot of words that mean nothing and says nothing. please think a little more about what your saying:- 1) Qatar is a foreign totalitarian monarchy, slavery is a crime against humanity. Those things are not the same as ordinary French/german/british whatever citizens making their own choices on what they wear in a supposed 'free' society and going about their business being productive and harmless. How is this so hard for you guys? 2) you can cry and scream about how browns and their hats and cloths make you more angry than when jews/Buddhists/Christians do it all you want, the question isn't wether you have the right to complain about it (you do) but whether you should legislate against it, which you shouldn't because it denies people individual freedoms and intrudes into their lives. 3) Hijab/Niqab/Islam or whatever isn't what's on trial, there's other threads for that. The question here is whether a supposed 'free' and 'democratic' government should legislate against choices of clothing made by individuals in that society. Which if you really do believe in demoncracy means you should protect. quote:As far as I can tell, Sinteres' argument is basically that religious items can't be discussed as an entirely private thing, because religion is a social force. Thus religious clothing or accessories aren't merely a matter of individual style, but also a social signal, which onlookers then interpret according to their own values. Which again you can be mad at a piece of cloth all you like, you can hate social forces and religions coming and going all you like, heck you can even go protest on the streets and sign up at your local Front Nationale Office and be a member, that's your choice and your right. but you shouldn't ban and legislate against citizens making their own choices on what to believe and what to wear. if the onlookers don't like it they can grumble all they like then go home and jerk off to a mariane le penn poster to let off steam. They're not harming you, therefore you shouldn't force them into anything they don't want. quote:Meaning that while someone raised in a liberal environment might just read it as saying nothing more than "I'm Christian/Muslim/Jewish", someone raised within a religiously oppressive environment could read it as "You better fall in line too, or else..", which then compels them to wear those items too, perpetuating the culture of oppression through their own oppression. So basically you believe that it's the governments job to enforce social norms and movements. If you honestly and totally believe that the government should ban Yarmalukes, Nun Dresses, Amish People, Buddhists, etc. and target their religious communities and social norms just as viceforously as you think they should in a local French muslim community then OK. that's your belief in what society ought to be. Also, they're not living in a country that forces them to wear something, they have the choice on whether to keep wearing it or not, if the individual perceives they have no choice due to peer pressure to 'fit in' or something than that's not something the government can legislate away and shouldn't since it's in the private realm and not public, something that has to sussed out socially rather than with an iron fist. quote:Most jobs generally require you to interact with people face-to-face, and a big part of human interaction is facial expressions. It might not be strictly impossible, but it's certainly a handicap when you take away a means of communication. Then don't hire them for the job. Boom, Done. I'm sure people who decide to wear the full Niqab will find jobs that fits their life choices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:This is a lot of words that mean nothing and says nothing. please think a little more about what your saying:- Al-Saqr posted:So basically you believe that it's the governments job to enforce social norms and movements. If you honestly and totally believe that the government should ban Yarmalukes, Nun Dresses, Amish People, Buddhists, etc. and target their religious communities and social norms just as viceforously as you think they should in a local French muslim community then OK. that's your belief in what society ought to be. Al-Saqr posted:Also, they're not living in a country that forces them to wear something, they have the choice on whether to keep wearing it or not, if the individual perceives they have no choice due to peer pressure to 'fit in' or something than that's not something the government can legislate away and shouldn't since it's in the private realm and not public, something that has to sussed out socially rather than with an iron fist. Al-Saqr posted:Then don't hire them for the job. Boom, Done. I'm sure people who decide to wear the full Niqab will find jobs that fits their life choices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Piece of clothing, piece of clothing, people, people. Those items you listed are hardly comparable. As for what I believe, yeah, I do think the state should be unafraid to intervene in any environment where the freedom of one group is used to oppress another, whether that is parents beating their children, social norms interfering with the ability of members in the community (or even outside it) to act freely in a manner which doesn't itself harm others, or where "freedom of speech" is used to intimidate communities for no reason besides them being "different". Like banning swimwear because it looks "too Muslim"? Or because it's a state action that doesn't count?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like banning swimwear because it looks "too Muslim"? Or because it's a state action that doesn't count?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
[quote="Al-Saqr" post=""46314439!"]They're not harming you, therefore you shouldn't force them into anything they don't want. [/quote] This is a bs position, there are plenty of cases where one should force the people to do things even if you are not affected by the issue yourself. His example with Qatar is an extreme one but a more mundane ones would be that rich countries should not care about the systematic exploitation of poor countries, that men should not care about female discrimination or that white people should not care about Nazis non violently harassing black people because they were themselves not affected and no laws were broken. What you should argue is that these religious practices or whatever is actually so inconsequential and harmless to society as a whole that there is no reason to limit those practices by law or policy. Personally I think that massive gender inequalities in religious sects is much better counteracted by targeted laws and policies like no religious private schools and much tighter government control of state subsidiaries to religious organizations, things like burka bans is just populism and does nothing to the underlying causes. quote:So basically you believe that it's the governments job to enforce social norms and movements. He, is Scandinavian, it is a pretty tried and true concept there and was vital in building the successful welfare states. Zudgemud fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
People should be free to wear what they want. That there's people here arguing that certain types of dress should be subject to systematic discrimination (if not state intervention) is majorly hosed up; if you think that the burka itself, because it symbolises traditional repression of women in Islamic societies, is offensive enough that it gives you the right to impose restrictions on what is acceptable for women to wear, you are doing the same thing as the oppressors and stripping women of their agency to wear what they want and make their own choices about how they live their lives, and you should reflect upon that. That is final, and if people continue to argue about this I will have to consider giving this thread a timeout.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Does anyone here remember what actually started this argument? Because I do and it it wasn't the burqa, it was the burkini. For those of you who have never heard of GiS. This is a burqa:  This is a burkini:  These two are not remotely the same loving thing. Unless someone here is honestly brave/foolish enough to try to argue for a ban of the veil the ban on burkinis on beaches remains completely unjustified. Should we ban wetsuits too? God this thread. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Does anyone here remember what actually started this argument? Because I do and it it wasn't the burqa, it was the burkini. For those of you who have never heard of GiS. it's the standard formula, first some casual bigotry thinly coached in faux-concern: Riso posted:Let's be honest here. Then rapid goalpost-moving to distract from that when called on it. Unfortunately those goalposts always seem to get stuck to Muslims Bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Should we ban wetsuits too? No but you see slavery and nazism were things that happened and are totally the same thing as beachwear. therefore we should ban the Burkini.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
It's interesting that burkinis aren't marketed to or purchased by men despite the fact that they're supposed to be modest as well. But sure, it's all about religion and not at all about systematic oppression of women. I can't wait for liberals to start defending families sending their children to gay conversion therapy next as long as the parents aren't white Christians.
Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's interesting that burkinis aren't marketed to or purchased by men despite the fact that they're supposed to be modest as well. But sure, it's all about religion and not at all about systematic oppression of women. I can't wait for liberals to start defending families sending their children to gay conversion therapy next as long as the parents aren't white Christians. Truly the anti-white conspiracies know no bounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:People should be free to wear what they want. That there's people here arguing that certain types of dress should be subject to systematic discrimination (if not state intervention) is majorly hosed up; if you think that the burka itself, because it symbolises traditional repression of women in Islamic societies, is offensive enough that it gives you the right to impose restrictions on what is acceptable for women to wear, you are doing the same thing as the oppressors and stripping women of their agency to wear what they want and make their own choices about how they live their lives, and you should reflect upon that. It is ironic that the people who hate the oppressive Muslim culture feel that mandating what certain people can or can't wear by law is totally laid-back or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Truly the anti-white conspiracies know no bounds. It's not anti-white to care enough about gay white people to defend them from child abuse. It's racist to condemn non-white women and children to abuse because you're afraid of offending their cultural sensibilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
I think people should be free to wear what they want, except under the following circumstances: 1. State employees should not be allowed to wear obvious religious clothing when they are fulfilling public functions (e.g. teachers, judges, etc.) 2. When attending a demonstration or other public events you should not be allowed to hide your face In all other cases people should be free to do what they want, but private individuals should be free to enforce the clothing restrictions they want on their property (e.g. if a pool operator doesn't want burkinis, he doesn't have to allow them).
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's not anti-white to care enough about gay white people to defend them from child abuse. It's racist to condemn non-white women and children to abuse because you're afraid of offending their cultural sensibilities. Correct, it is racist to condemn non-white women to the abuse of being told what they should or shouldn't wear by you. Now I asked that this line of conversation be dropped, and I expect you will actually do so now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Now I asked that this line of conversation be dropped, and I expect you will actually do so now. Okay mom. Wouldn't want you to turn this car around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's interesting that burkinis aren't marketed to or purchased by men despite the fact that they're supposed to be modest as well. But sure, it's all about religion and not at all about systematic oppression of women. I can't wait for liberals to start defending families sending their children to gay conversion therapy next as long as the parents aren't white Christians. It's also hosed up how high heels and dresses are never marketed to men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Correct, it is racist to condemn non-white women to the abuse of being told what they should or shouldn't wear by you. Now I asked that this line of conversation be dropped, and I expect you will actually do so now. Stop armchair moderating, people can discuss whatever they want on this forum. If you don't want to read a discussion, scroll down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:People should be free to wear what they want. That there's people here arguing that certain types of dress should be subject to systematic discrimination (if not state intervention) is majorly hosed up; if you think that the burka itself, because it symbolises traditional repression of women in Islamic societies, is offensive enough that it gives you the right to impose restrictions on what is acceptable for women to wear, you are doing the same thing as the oppressors and stripping women of their agency to wear what they want and make their own choices about how they live their lives, and you should reflect upon that. the question implied by your argument is whether whatever ~traditional~ regressive bullshit spills over into
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's interesting that burkinis aren't marketed to or purchased by men despite the fact that they're supposed to be modest as well. But sure, it's all about religion and not at all about systematic oppression of women. I can't wait for liberals to start defending families sending their children to gay conversion therapy next as long as the parents aren't white Christians. So those dastardly muslims brainwashed Chinese women too right? Because this is really popular beachwear for mainland Chinese women recently:  blowfish posted:the question implied by your argument is whether whatever ~traditional~ regressive bullshit spills over into And the answer to that question is "no", as anyone with half a brain can see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Isn't that the fad in China because the ladies don't want to get tanned?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:Isn't that the fad in China because the ladies don't want to get tanned? We should ban this unfrench fad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 22:27
|
|