|
blowfish posted:We should ban this unfrench fad. Ask L'Acadamie Francaise first. They're experts on what is French and what isn't.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:Isn't that the fad in China because the ladies don't want to get tanned? Yep. And incidentally across the west similar bathing suits to the ones the French try to have banned have been popular at various times for that reason, as well as for general concerns of "modesty".
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
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. I too think people's freedom of assembly should be eliminated becuase I am a teenage redditor who hates religion
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I too think people's freedom of assembly should be eliminated becuase I am a teenage redditor who hates religion I too like strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 08:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
icantfindaname posted:I too think people's freedom of assembly should be eliminated becuase I am a teenage redditor who hates religion icantfindaname, in a way I really do appreciate your efforts to provide ideological diversity and stop this from turning into an echo chamber or anything. But I would appreciate it if posters like you, drilldo squirt etc., were a bit more honest about your own beliefs and motivations in posting in these kinds of threads. To be specific I find it disingenuous for you to be constantly accusing people of being far-right fascists for holding opinions there are well within the mainstream of the secularist cultural left. I would appreciate it said posters were a little bit more forthright about self-identifying as anti-secularists who believe that the process of pushing religion out of the Public Square (over the past 50 years in most western nations) is actually a bad thing. Be more honest about the fact that you are social conservatives or, at the very least, Libertarians with a lingering affection for religious communities. Back to the topic at hand, I think that the best solution to the issue of both the burka and the burkini is the dissemination of public awareness advertisements to religious communities to help individual women see how wearing the symbols of slavery in public spaces is an act of hostility towards culturally liberated women. Muslim women should find a compromise of wearing clothing that they feel protects their modesty without sending the implicit message of support for oppression that women's garb that is specifically muslim does. For the last time, I'm not saying that any choice of clothing should be outright banned by the government, but the message needs to be spread to Muslim women in Western countries how offensive it is to wear, in public, garments that millions of women around the world are enslaved into wearing and which mini Muslim religious leaders are not afraid of saying should be mandatory for women everywhere, including Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Back to the topic at hand, I think that the best solution to the issue of both the burka and the burkini is the dissemination of public awareness advertisements to religious communities to help individual women see how wearing the symbols of slavery in public spaces is an act of hostility towards culturally liberated women. Muslim women should find a compromise of wearing clothing that they feel protects their modesty without sending the implicit message of support for oppression that women's garb that is specifically muslim does. I doubt anyone would have a problem with the latter. But you'll find a great deal more push back from the suggestion that the government should be doing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:icantfindaname, in a way I really do appreciate your efforts to provide ideological diversity and stop this from turning into an echo chamber or anything. But I would appreciate it if posters like you, drilldo squirt etc., were a bit more honest about your own beliefs and motivations in posting in these kinds of threads. I think the people passing and defending punitive laws targeting minority groups are a bigger problem than people saying it's not ok for governments to do that, personally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Because that is why they did this, it's the same reason they banned minarets, it is to demonstrate to a minority group that they aren't welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Prepare to be assimilated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Because that is why they did this, it's the same reason they banned minarets, it is to demonstrate to a minority group that they aren't welcome. Those two issues are extremely different both in terms of their justifiability in my opinion, and in terms of international reaction and the degree of criticism each ban recieved. There is actually a compelling State interest involved in the burqa issue, just not a good enough reason to override the principle of freedom of expression. Minarets, by virtue of not necessarily involving archaic sexual politics and not serving as a direct means of oppression in a large swathe of the world, are vastly less problematic and easier to defend. Conversely, and regardless of the justifiability of a ban, there is no good reason to wear a burqa that isn't outweighed by the harm done. I can't stress enough that wearing an identifiable slave robe - and that is the primary purpose of that garment in the present place and time, to signal submission to a religiously justified form of slavery - is an act of violence, however small, just like wearing a widely recognized symbol of white supremacy. If I had a buddhist friend who really liked wearing swastika jewelry in public I would tell him to knock it off even if he has a legitimate heritagee related reason for making such a choice. After a certain amount of history in context a symbol becomes so toxic that there is never a good reason for wearing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Banning the burqa will just make it that these women won't even leave their homes. Most young muslim women living in western societies that do wear burqa's do so from their own free will as a type of teenage revolt against their parents ironically. Banning it, is as dumb as banning the public display of the suastic cross, it just turns it into an even more desirable fetish for the lunatics that do want to tattoo it or whatever. Much more important would be to stress that women that do want to stop wearing the burqa will have the state's support against familiar or otherwise agressive reactions and blowback.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Fados posted:Banning the burqa will just make it that these women won't even leave their homes. Most young muslim women living in western societies that do wear burqa's do so from their own free will as a type of teenage revolt against their parents ironically. If it's so, it makes the ban even more benign. Lots of anti-social behaviours are prohibited, to protect the risk demographics from their own stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Those two issues are extremely different both in terms of their justifiability in my opinion, and in terms of international reaction and the degree of criticism each ban recieved. There is actually a compelling State interest involved in the burqa issue, just not a good enough reason to override the principle of freedom of expression. If there was a compelling state interest in banning that type of speech in burkas than such a ban would survive in the USA under strict scrutiny. Seeing as how there was no compelling state interest in the case where a bunch of neo nazis held a parade through a predominately Jewish neighborhood. I cannot imagine how you could be right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Because that is why they did this, it's the same reason they banned minarets, it is to demonstrate to a minority group that they aren't welcome. Despite their cool look minarets can be a totally different thing though, if they are coupled to loud call to prayer several times a day then gently caress that noise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Despite their cool look minarets can be a totally different thing though, if they are coupled to loud call to prayer several times a day then gently caress that noise. Just enforce existing noise regulations. Or let nuisance lawsuits force them to stop or go bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
We're in a modern society. Just replace the loudspeakers by a smartphone app, let the local practicing Muslims subscribe to receiving the call to prayer on their phone. Seriously, it'd work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Fados posted:Most young muslim women living in western societies that do wear burqa's do so from their own free will as a type of teenage revolt against their parents ironically. Ah yes, all those ironic burqa wearers. First it was trucker hats and now burqas. You can't walk down the street in Williamsburg or Portland without tripping over some hipster ironically wearing fabric obscuring every square centimeter of their skin. I hear that Hot Topic basically just sells burqas now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Those two issues are extremely different both in terms of their justifiability in my opinion, and in terms of international reaction and the degree of criticism each ban recieved. There is actually a compelling State interest involved in the burqa issue, just not a good enough reason to override the principle of freedom of expression. Look at all these words that you said to not address the point I made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If it's so, it makes the ban even more benign. Lots of anti-social behaviours are prohibited, to protect the risk demographics from their own stupidity. Should Ramstein shows be banned because they use nazi symbols? Fados fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If I had a buddhist friend who really liked wearing swastika jewelry in public I would tell him to knock it off even if he has a legitimate heritagee related reason for making such a choice. After a certain amount of history in context a symbol becomes so toxic that there is never a good reason for wearing it. Unless you're Finnish apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Ah yes, all those ironic burqa wearers. First it was trucker hats and now burqas. You can't walk down the street in Williamsburg or Portland without tripping over some hipster ironically wearing fabric obscuring every square centimeter of their skin. I hear that Hot Topic basically just sells burqas now. I didn't say they did it ironically. There is such a thing as genuine anger. Not everyone is a cynical 'post-ideological' american.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Look banning a specific type of clothes (past simplest modesty) is a loving stupid idea. And girls can and do look hot in burkini or whatever too. Even from the leery lecherous gently caress point of view it's fine as a variety thing? People just want to be lovely racists that's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless you're Finnish apparently. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:We're in a modern society. Just replace the loudspeakers by a smartphone app, let the local practicing Muslims subscribe to receiving the call to prayer on their phone. I think in Singapore they made you require a radio to be able to listen to the call.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Fados posted:Should Ramstein shows be banned because they use nazi symbols? They do? Do you have any pictures to support that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:They do? Do you have any pictures to support that? https://vimeo.com/175326866
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Yeah Rammstein don't dress up as Nazis but they do make a lot of symbolic references to Nazi aesthetics, mostly to mock it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I've not read much about it, basically I only know that it was a part of the Commonwealth, but how bad was it for the Ukrainians and other people living there? Were they oppressed by the szlachta more than the Poles in Poland (who were quite oppressed by them)? 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 icantfindaname posted:But yes, France would probably have been better off with less rigid and intolerant ideologies and more decentralization Pizdec fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
I didn't see a single nazi symbol in this video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I didn't see a single nazi symbol in this video. Well, he was goose stepping at the intro. But Rammstein is pretty out about not being Nazis and support a lot of Leftists stuff, they just tend to get lumped in due to the sort of Industrial metal they play and being German. "In the film The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, the psychanalytical Communist philosopher Slavoj Žižek presented Rammstein as an example of how to remove the Nazi ideology from the cultural forms used by Nazism." CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Rammstein have said in interviews etc. that they've been influenced by the work of Laibach, who... Kinda ran with the Nazi aesthetic thing in the 80's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:This is from a couple of pages back, but it didn't get an answer, so - yes, Lithuania in general and Ukraine in particular were characterized by colonial-like export-heavy economy and pressure to convert to Polish culture and Catholicism. Failure to do so would result in decreased authority of the nobles, and increased mistreatment of the peasants, which in turn resulted in some of them uniting under the new Cossack identity and subsequent revolts. If you're interested in the topic, check out the works of Daniel Beauvois. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
It's amazing to me how cowardly racists are in this thread that they can't even own up to their own beliefs and instead post things like.Zudgemud posted:Despite their cool look minarets can be a totally different thing though, if they are coupled to loud call to prayer several times a day then gently caress that noise. Which ignoring the stupidity of the reasoning, is made worse since we all know that's not why the law was made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
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. Actually it's militant atheism that belongs in the dumpster of history. Most people in the world are theists and most don't use their beliefs to oppress other people. Enforced secularism makes it near-impossible for Middle Eastern immigrants and their children to fully assimilate into Western culture, and is a big part of why France and Belgium are such fertile recruiting grounds for DAESH. Also these laws aren't about keeping women from being oppressed anyway, and you're not fooling anyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually it's militant atheism that belongs in the dumpster of history. Most people in the world are theists and most don't use their beliefs to oppress other people. Enforced secularism makes it near-impossible for Middle Eastern immigrants and their children to fully assimilate into Western culture, and is a big part of why France and Belgium are such fertile recruiting grounds for DAESH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Are you saying Middle Easterner are incompatible with French and Belgian culture? No, I'm saying that when secularism (or religion or morality or whatever) is enforced in a way that is pretty clearly targeted towards any minority group, it makes it considerably less likely that that minority group will assimilate. e: I mean, FFS, how is this an unclear concept to so many Europeans? How is the U.S., of all places, more clued-in on this? 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, I'm saying that when secularism (or religion or morality or whatever) is enforced in a way that is pretty clearly targeted towards any minority group, it makes it considerably less likely that that minority group will assimilate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Rammstein are cool and good and not nazis, thanks and god bless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Rammstein are cool and good and not nazis, thanks and god bless. It's cool, they're just taking back goose stepping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:Secularism can create a neutral space for people to co-exist in, regardless of their beliefs, and in that sense it's very beneficial to multiculturalism. Burqa-bans and the like aren't part of that, though, and are generally just forms of racism that use the language of secularism to gain traction with liberals. Yeah, the emphasis was meant to be on the "enforced" part of "enforced secularism."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:57
|
|