|
I think you'll find they identify as left-wing, therefore their political cartoons cannot be in any way offensive to the people represented in them. Suggesting otherwise mean you literally support the people who shot up their offices. This is rational. I am rational. Rational.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There's literally nothing that says mosques must blare the call to prayer. Enforcing existing noise ordinances against all religious buildings should suffice. You don't need to block their construction. Anyone who does is a prejudiced piece of poo poo. Yes I know, this is mostly how it is made here in Sweden, which is lovely, worshipers get house of worship and noise levels gets regulated by the current law/people who bother to complain. Also, I'm not arguing that the law was a good idea or even that minarets = soundpollution, just that people generally dislike religious stuff like that for valid reasons too, and if it somehow came up for a popular vote (which it can basically only do in Switzerland) then it would likely fail in more secular countries too, because gently caress that (kind of shoving religion down my ears) noise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think you'll find they identify as left-wing, therefore their political cartoons cannot be in any way offensive to the people represented in them. It's going to be really cool when you wrap all the way around to defending an attack by a religious fanatic on a woman dressed immodestly because she should have known better than to wear that outfit in that neighborhood. There's no reason to bring up the content of the cartoons unless it's to say that the cartoonists had it coming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's going to be really cool when you wrap all the way around to defending an attack by a religious fanatic on a woman dressed immodestly because she should have known better than to wear that outfit in that neighborhood. There's no reason to bring up the content of the cartoons unless it's to say that the cartoonists had it coming. Yes, European racists really are the true victims here, Sinteres.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, European racists really are the true victims here, Sinteres. Even if they are racist, which I'm not conceding, they actually are victims if they're loving murdered you monster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Sinteres that is an absurd thing to expect. It makes me think you are dishonestly trying to change the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Sinteres, no one is saying it was good they were murdered, it was bad. Though using the massacre to win an argument online is kinda hosed, however.
drilldo squirt fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Even if they are racist, which I'm not conceding, they actually are victims if they're loving murdered you monster. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon I posted was published after the attack, so no, those cartoonists were not murdered. Also, I was talking about people who support poo poo like the burka ban, who are definitely not victims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Charlie Hebdo cartoon I posted was published after the attack, so no, those cartoonists were not murdered. Also, I was talking about people who support poo poo like the burka ban, who are definitely not victims. So you think the majority of the French public should be murdered instead. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's going to be really cool when you wrap all the way around to defending an attack by a religious fanatic on a woman dressed immodestly because she should have known better than to wear that outfit in that neighborhood. There's no reason to bring up the content of the cartoons unless it's to say that the cartoonists had it coming. Yeah look at this you did exactly what I just literally strawmanned for a joke. Do you not feel even slightly stupid for this? Can you explain your warped logic so that human beings can attempt to connect the dots as to your weird marsupial cognition?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Sinteres accusing people of wanting all french people murdered is not going to change the fact that laws targeting minority groups are wrong and bad and only racists would support it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah look at this you did exactly what I just literally strawmanned for a joke. His thought process is an increasingly panicked voice in his mind telling him he isn't racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:His thought process is an increasingly panicked voice in his mind telling him he isn't racist. Ah, Trumpian Ear. Hate when I catch that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:So you think the majority of the French public should be murdered instead. Cool. Yeah, that's literally what "not the victim" means. Good job, you've cracked the code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Virtuous antidemocratic liberal: Please think of the refugees, millions of whom will die if they're not provided with shelter. Evil European: Okay, but in return we ask that they make an effort to fit in with the culture they're moving to, and try to round off the corners on some of the more extreme expressions of religious traditions when they conflict with our values of secularism and feminism. Virtuous antidemocratic liberal: No deal racists, you're worse than Assad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, European racists really are the true victims here, Sinteres. The majority (though not the totality) of the victims of the ongoing wave of extremist terror in Europe has been non-muslim, non-immigrant individuals. And if you're going to cast so broad and that is to say that any Europeans who have misgivings about muslim immigrants, or even attack nonhuman or historical symbols of the religion, are racists... Then yes, by your definitions, your post is true. And lest anyone accuse me of dragging the post off topic; the same point of contention is coming up here - whether attacks (in media or law or whatever) on a religion can have legitimate motivations aside from racism - is much the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Virtuous antidemocratic liberal: Please think of the refugees, millions of whom will die if they're not provided with shelter. So in other words you can't explain your thought process because it would reveal you're just an unabashed racist trying to pretend you cared about the dead from Charlie Hebdo. Thanks for the clarification you hateful gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Sinteres do you think it should be against the law to exchange wedding rings? Those originated as a symbol of the man's ownership over the woman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Virtuous antidemocratic liberal: Please think of the refugees, millions of whom will die if they're not provided with shelter. I guess individual freedom of choice and expression of what to wear is not a part of European culture Anymore. Good to know. So when do we start yanking the nuns clothing off and forcing Jews to stop wearing their silly hats? Come on, since on obviously you care about secularism let's start with those closest to you. Also, you're kind of forgetting the part where most of those people choosing to wear the veil are just as European and just as french as you can hope to be, unless of course the rule of law doesn't matter anymore in your eyes and 'purity of blood' is what matters most. Let's take an example, there's a french hip hop artist lady named 'Diams' French as French can be, lived the rockstar life. One day she decided that she found God and became a Muslim. She decided to dress on the more conservative side of hijab of her own free will. Please explain to me why this French citizen should be denied her right to dress as she pleases as a citizen of a supposed democratic free country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Sinteres do you think it should be against the law to exchange wedding rings? Given that it's an exchange, it would seem to signal co-ownership. I think mutual engagement rings are an okay idea too, or no engagement rings at all. They seem pretty dumb to me, so I'd probably still be pretty grateful if a country I moved to in poverty and despair allowed me to remain in exchange for giving up that tradition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The majority (though not the totality) of the victims of the ongoing wave of extremist terror in Europe has been non-muslim, non-immigrant individuals. You do realize that "death by terrorist" isn't exactly the only way one can be victimized, right? quote:And if you're going to cast so broad and that is to say that any Europeans who have misgivings about muslim immigrants, I actually never said that. I did refer to Europeans who support things like the burqa ban, which isn't the same thing as having misgivings about Muslim immigrants. quote:or even attack nonhuman or historical symbols of the religion, are racists... Then yes, by your definitions, your post is true. In this case, where it's a minority religion that has been racialized by white xenophobes, and faces widespread discrimination from other facets of the society in question...then yeah, that's a pretty drat racist thing to do. Hate to break it to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Virtuous antidemocratic liberal: Please think of the refugees, millions of whom will die if they're not provided with shelter. The burqa ban, this swimsuit ordinance, banning minarets, etc, go waaaaay beyond this, and you know it. quote:Virtuous antidemocratic liberal: No deal racists, you're worse than Assad. No one said this, you big whiny baby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I guess individual freedom of choice and expression of what to wear is not a part of European culture Anymore. Good to know. So when do we start yanking the nuns clothing off and forcing Jews to stop wearing their silly hats? Come on, since on obviously you care about secularism let's start with those closest to you. Christians and Jews have had their rights to wear religious clothing in some contexts limited in France too. Doesn't bother me. I'm not really a fan of bans in the first place, as I've stated numerous times, but France is more strident about protecting their secular values than I am. Maybe the citizens in a supposed democratic country have the right to decide what their values are. In many European countries, they've decided the burqa doesn't fit them. Here in the US, the hijab is not only legally protected, but employers are also forbidden from discriminating against workers for wearing one. I think that's probably appropriate in a greater good sense, even though there's obviously a harm done to the employer's freedom in the name of religious tolerance since they'd be allowed to fire employees for other types of dress they deem inappropriate, but if it were a burqa I'd think that would be a step too far, though the right to wear one in public remains.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Maybe the citizens in a supposed democratic country have the right to decide what their values are. Sure they do. And when those values include going out of their way to oppress minority populations, guess what? It's everyone else's right to call them out as racists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:In many European countries, they've decided the burqa doesn't fit them. Here in the US, the hijab is not only legally protected, but employers are also forbidden from discriminating against workers for wearing one. I think that's probably appropriate in a greater good sense, even though there's obviously a harm done to the employer's freedom in the name of religious tolerance since they'd be allowed to fire employees for other types of dress they deem inappropriate, but if it were a burqa I'd think that would be a step too far, though the right to wear one in public remains. So in other words religious freedom begins and ends with what you personally feel comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So in other words religious freedom begins and ends with what you personally feel comfortable with. The imposition obviously grows when you expect an employer to hire someone who covers her face. Anti-discrimination laws are good, but they're also balanced against what's practical, and I think that's the level where there are enough practical concerns that employers should have the right to decide. I'm not the Supreme Court, but those are basically the factors they'd be weighing too. Fortunately burqas aren't all that common, especially in women seeking jobs. I guess you think religious freedom should be unlimited even when it infringes on the liberty of others?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Maybe we just call Europe a write off, move on and try something else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The imposition obviously grows when you expect an employer to hire someone who covers her face. Anti-discrimination laws are good, but they're also balanced against what's practical, and I think that's the level where there are enough practical concerns that employers should have the right to decide. I'm not the Supreme Court, but those are basically the factors they'd be weighing too. Fortunately burqas aren't all that common, especially in women seeking jobs. Religious freedom by definition doesn't infringe on the rights of others You don't have a right to never be exposed to religion
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The imposition obviously grows when you expect an employer to hire someone who covers her face. I don't see what the problem is supposed to be here? Once again, I've seen plenty of women who choose to dress unfashionably in this way at work over here. They don't seem to be doing a worse job or anything. I mean I get that some European employers are insane and expect you to provide photographs with resumes like some kind of world's worst dating service, but that's stupid and they should stop that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The imposition obviously grows when you expect an employer to hire someone who covers her face. Anti-discrimination laws are good, but they're also balanced against what's practical, and I think that's the level where there are enough practical concerns that employers should have the right to decide. I'm not the Supreme Court, but those are basically the factors they'd be weighing too. Fortunately burqas aren't all that common, especially in women seeking jobs. Oh look, another strawman. What I said: "So in other words religious freedom begins and ends with what you personally feel comfortable with." What you retort: "I guess you think religious freedom should be unlimited even when it infringes on the liberty of others?" Notice how your retort actually encapsulates the claim I made at you. I mock your position by suggesting you impose your personal feelings on others, and you reply by saying I'm an idiot who'd allow people to impose their morality on others. You're literally arguing against your own position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I don't see what the problem is supposed to be here? Once again, I've seen plenty of women who choose to dress unfashionably in this way at work over here. They don't seem to be doing a worse job or anything. I firmly believe that you don't leave your house enough to understand how employment works, but employers do have the ability to regulate the clothing their employees wear. That's limited when the clothing is tied to religious belief, but there are limits there as well, though the strict delineation of those limits isn't always clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh look, another strawman. So where do you objectively want to draw the line? Of course it's subjective. You asked a stupid question in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I firmly believe that you don't leave your house enough to understand how employment works, but employers do have the ability to regulate the clothing their employees wear. That's limited when the clothing is tied to religious belief, but there are limits there as well, though the strict delineation of those limits isn't always clear. You can firmly believe whatever you want, insane racist dude. That doesn't make it true. I get that the very sight of a Muslim woman causes you to run screaming but they really do not have a problem performing normal jobs in the least. I suggest that you are the one who's never left the house judging by how you think wearing unfashionable clothes "should" be an impediment to doing typical jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You can firmly believe whatever you want, insane racist dude. That doesn't make it true. I get that the very sight of a Muslim woman causes you to run screaming but they really do not have a problem performing normal jobs in the least. Since you're autistic and don't understand how human emotion correlates with facial expressions, I understand that you don't see how face-covering could be a problem in many workplaces. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:So where do you objectively want to draw the line? Of course it's subjective. You asked a stupid question in the first place. Interesting claim given I've not actually asked a question there. I made an observation based on things previously said - either raise a question based on that or realise your error, please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Since you're autistic and don't understand how human emotion correlates with facial expressions, I understand that you don't see how face-covering could be a problem in many workplaces. Interesting, the extreme racist starts accusing other people of having problems when he freaks out because some women dress unfashionably near him. It's really telling that you can't come up with any non-racist excuse for your positions, by the way. Smarter racists can do that, why can't you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Go find out what happens to people accused of being Daesh on the refugee trail and you'll get some measure of what the refugees in general think of these fuckwits. (And I hope the request doesn't get lost in the 2016 Great Tolerance Wars of D&D.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Interesting, the extreme racist starts accusing other people of having problems when he freaks out because some women dress unfashionably near him. It's really telling that you can't come up with any non-racist excuse for your positions, by the way. Smarter racists can do that, why can't you? poo poo like this is exactly what destroys the middle. If even someone who thinks anti-discrimination laws should protect women who wear hijabs is labeled an extreme racist, it points to how absurdly maximalist your demands for absolute surrender really are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:poo poo like this is exactly what destroys the middle. Funnily enough 'the middle' is a constantly changing position based upon the rhetorical foundations of a society. To insinuate that such a position represents a well-defined and rigid political position is as stupid as claiming Islam is one specific set of rules rigidly outlining ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:poo poo like this is exactly what destroys the middle. If even someone who thinks anti-discrimination laws should protect women who wear hijabs is labeled an extreme racist, it points to how absurdly maximalist your demands for absolute surrender really are. Ha ha what? Oh yeah here in America we totally just absolutely surrendered to the Muslims! What's that even supposed to mean besides the obvious: you think muslims are subhuman and don't deserve to live? Listen up buddy, you're being called an extreme racist because you are saying extremely racist things, constantly and unprompted. No "destroying the middle" is happening, although it would be great if it were. Because the middle ground between sane people and you is still very loving racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:06
|
|