|
freelancemoth posted:Very interesting watching people in this thread, with either leftist or marxists views, defend patrichal values (who historically are very AGAINST "traditional values) when at the same time seeing right wing, or quasi-fascists, defend womens rights who historically have been DEFENDING "traditional values". I'm not sure how you got that from the thread fascists determining what is acceptable for women to wear and the thread communists saying that people are free to wear what they want.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Just gonna leave this here in case you decide to edit. Why would I want to edit it? Only hypersensitive uncultured idiots don't get that to talk about, criticise or mock a bad thing it can be helpful to show it in all its ugliness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:30
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Majorian posted:Except that we're talking about actual legislation and ordinances that discriminate against a religious minority. Which makes the Nazi comparison a much more apt one than if we were talking about animal rights and curtailing smoking. I'm not sure that follows. For example, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics also discriminated, to varying degrees over time, the practice of religions, would they too be an apt comparison? And conversely, the National Socialist state did legislate improvements to animal rights, and legislated and publicly campaigned against smoking. It's a silly argument to just yell NAZI NAZI NAZI and call it a day when you could, you know, discuss the actual legislation happening in the year of our Lord 2016. But I suppose it's more viscerally satisfying to Americans to yell NAZI NAZI NAZI and call it a day? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Why would I want to edit it? Only hypersensitive uncultured idiots don't get that to talk about, criticise or mock a bad thing it can be helpful to show it in all its ugliness. "It's not racist, it's SATIRE! God, why can't you take a JOKE? You're so sensitive!" freelancemoth posted:Very interesting watching people in this thread, with either leftist or marxists views, defend patrichal values (who historically are very AGAINST "traditional values) when at the same time seeing right wing, or quasi-fascists, defend womens rights who historically have been DEFENDING "traditional values". A big part of women's rights is allowing women to wear what they want and live as they like, within reason. If a woman wants to be a homemaker instead of a career woman, that's her choice. Likewise, if she wants to wear a hijab as a sign of her piety, and she doesn't feel forced to do so, that should be respected. Forcing her to not wear what she wants is the anti-women's rights position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I'm not sure that follows. For example, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics also discriminated, to varying degrees over time, the practice of religions, would they too be an apt comparison? Yes, it would - particularly given that the USSR was particularly repressive against minority religious groups. It was nasty to the Orthodox, but worse to Jews, Muslims, etc. quote:And conversely, the National Socialist state did legislate improvements to animal rights, and legislated and publicly campaigned against smoking. It's a silly argument to just yell NAZI NAZI NAZI and call it a day when you could, you know, discuss the actual legislation happening in the year of our Lord 2016. But I suppose it's more viscerally satisfying to Americans to yell NAZI NAZI NAZI and call it a day? Are you really, actually arguing that I'm being unfair by suggesting that the defining domestic feature of the Nazi period was ethnic/religious/cultural repression?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"It's not racist, it's SATIRE! God, why can't you take a JOKE? You're so sensitive!" Majorian: unable to distinguish dogwhistle support from serious criticism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"It's not racist, it's SATIRE! God, why can't you take a JOKE? You're so sensitive!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
true.spoon posted:But what if it is actually satire, intended by the author, understood by the person it is defending (and lauded), the people it is mocking and the general public? I am a bit frustrated because I typed up a post trying to explain exactly this difference in the perception of racist symbols in Europe and America on the last page. I understand, but a message of satire isn't the only message being sent by a cartoon like that. By portraying non-whites as sub-human animals, it says to non-white residents of Europe, "Hey, guess what? You're not one of us, and you'll never be accepted as one of us." When that's coming from a supposedly left-wing publication like Charlie Hebdo, well...that makes it even less encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Are you really, actually arguing that I'm being unfair by suggesting that the defining domestic feature of the Nazi period was ethnic/religious/cultural repression? No, like I said in my first post on the topic, it seems stupid and reactionary (and at least at this stage hyperbolic, we'll see when the ovens get warm again) to start yelling NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS instead of arguing on the merits of what is actually transpiring today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:No, like I said in my first post on the topic, it seems stupid and reactionary (and at least at this stage hyperbolic, we'll see when the ovens get warm again) to start yelling NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS instead of arguing on the merits of what is actually transpiring today. I don't think that was people's initial reaction. It seems to me that people have been mostly arguing about the merits of what's transpiring today, and only started making the Nazi comparison a ways into the discussion. But that said, the fact of the matter is, we're talking about legislation and ordinances that are flat-out geared towards discriminating against an ethno-religious minority. Like it or not, that's pretty fascistic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A big part of women's rights is allowing women to wear what they want and live as they like, within reason. If a woman wants to be a homemaker instead of a career woman, that's her choice. Likewise, if she wants to wear a hijab as a sign of her piety, and she doesn't feel forced to do so, that should be respected. Forcing her to not wear what she wants is the anti-women's rights position. But don't marxists, or leftists in general, argue that religion is often used to keep women in their place? By either "traditional values", law or family? So that the "free choice", i.e. being brought in a traditional or conservative muslim family, often means that she cannot choose to NOT wear a veil which in turn reinforces patriarchal values. What's the value of "free choice" when she even can't make that choice herself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand, but a message of satire isn't the only message being sent by a cartoon like that. By portraying non-whites as sub-human animals, it says to non-white residents of Europe, "Hey, guess what? You're not one of us, and you'll never be accepted as one of us." When that's coming from a supposedly left-wing publication like Charlie Hebdo, well...that makes it even less encouraging. Ceci n'est pas un racisme.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think that was people's initial reaction. It seems to me that people have been mostly arguing about the merits of what's transpiring today, and only started making the Nazi comparison a ways into the discussion. But that said, the fact of the matter is, we're talking about legislation and ordinances that are flat-out geared towards discriminating against an ethno-religious minority. Like it or not, that's pretty fascistic. I'm not really keen on getting into the nitty-gritty of fascistic theory and practice, however it seems to be a bit of an empty path to argue at the moment unless the working hypothesis is that banning certain types of swim wear is a certain indicator of systematic genocide in the near future. Which is the only merit the Nazi comparison could possibly have, versus simply pointing out that bigotry in general is offensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand, but a message of satire isn't the only message being sent by a cartoon like that. By portraying non-whites as sub-human animals, it says to non-white residents of Europe, "Hey, guess what? You're not one of us, and you'll never be accepted as one of us." When that's coming from a supposedly left-wing publication like Charlie Hebdo, well...that makes it even less encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:But don't marxists, or leftists in general, argue that religion is often used to keep women in their place? By either "traditional values", law or family? So that the "free choice", i.e. being brought in a traditional or conservative muslim family, often means that she cannot choose to NOT wear a veil which in turn reinforces patriarchal values. What's the value of "free choice" when she even can't make that choice herself? If a woman lives in a family like that do you think banning the burka will a) give the woman unprecedented freedom or b) cause the woman to never go outside?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:But don't marxists, or leftists in general, argue that religion is often used to keep women in their place? A few leftists do; not all of them. More are beginning to see religion and culture as things that aren't necessarily repressive or reinforcing of the patriarchy. quote:By either "traditional values", law or family? So that the "free choice", i.e. being brought in a traditional or conservative muslim family, often means that she cannot choose to NOT wear a veil which in turn reinforces patriarchal values. What's the value of "free choice" when she even can't make that choice herself? Some Muslim women certainly are trapped in ultra-conservative settings where they can't really choose whether or not they want to wear a burqa or live a life of submissiveness. But I don't buy for a second that that's the case with all of them. Also, it's pretty drat patristic of you to argue, "Well, these women just can't be trusted to make what I deem to be the right choice on their own, so I'm going to legislate that they must make the right choice." A Buttery Pastry posted:They're portraying the image a significant and growing portion of the population has of non-white residents, not non-white residents. Yes, again, I understand. What you don't seem to be understanding, is that the message poo poo like that sends to non-white people, might not be the same message that it sends to white people. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:They're portraying the image a significant and growing portion of the population has of non-white residents, not non-white residents. But, because non-whites are a fickle and easily scared species, we must tread carefully for fear of triggering their fight-or-flight reflex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
blowfish posted:But, because non-whites are a fickle and easily scared species, we must tread carefully for fear of triggering their fight-or-flight reflex. Hey, I'm not the one arguing that they need to be repressed openly and often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand, but a message of satire isn't the only message being sent by a cartoon like that. By portraying non-whites as sub-human animals, it says to non-white residents of Europe, "Hey, guess what? You're not one of us, and you'll never be accepted as one of us." When that's coming from a supposedly left-wing publication like Charlie Hebdo, well...that makes it even less encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:But don't marxists, or leftists in general, argue that religion is often used to keep women in their place? By either "traditional values", law or family? So that the "free choice", i.e. being brought in a traditional or conservative muslim family, often means that she cannot choose to NOT wear a veil which in turn reinforces patriarchal values. What's the value of "free choice" when she even can't make that choice herself? None of that means that banning the wearing unfashionable clothes is a good idea. It doesn't solve anything besides making racists happy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hey, I'm not the one arguing that they need to be repressed openly and often. You're treating them like they aren't adults with brains.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
true.spoon posted:It is possible that it sends this message and seemingly it would in America but this doesn't make it automatically true elsewhere. It is not for you to decide what message is send to white or non-white residents of France by something produced for a French audience. Given that Muslims in France and Western Europe in general continue to feel marginalized, to the point where they're disproportionately recruited by DAESH and other extremist groups, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that they're not getting the message from the white majority that you think they're getting. blowfish posted:You're treating them like they aren't adults with brains. "Treating them like adults with brains" = "seeing them as so untrustworthy that we can't allow them to wear hijabs or burqinis." Got it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Andrast posted:If a woman lives in a family like that do you think banning the burka will a) give the woman unprecedented freedom or b) cause the woman to never go outside? If she can never leave her house because of a burka ban, doesn't it prove the point that "traditional values" oppress women? And so shouldn't leftists and/or marxists welcome such a ban given their strong anti-religious feeling? Or are womens rights circumstantional depending on the religion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:If she can never leave her house because of a burka ban, doesn't it prove the point that "traditional values" oppress women? And so shouldn't leftists and/or marxists welcome such a ban given their strong anti-religious feeling? Or are womens rights circumstantional depending on the religion? Legislating against cultural practices only drives them underground and causes people to cling more tightly to it. Letting it come out in the open exposes the cultural minority group in question to other cultural values that they often come to like and adopt themselves. That's how you get people to assimilate: through soft power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:If she can never leave her house because of a burka ban, doesn't it prove the point that "traditional values" oppress women? And so shouldn't leftists and/or marxists welcome such a ban given their strong anti-religious feeling? Or are womens rights circumstantional depending on the religion? The ban wouldn't solve anything about the situation though. Just banning a thing won't make misogyny or religion disappear, it would probably just make them swear by it more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wow. You must be new here. We've had those arguments for a year now. In short: Catching all the people in ramshackle boats and bringing them to Europe does help the smugglers; we're doing their job for them. That makes it more attractive to try to cross the sea for other people. Alternative options are sending them back or not picking them up in the sea in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, again, I understand. What you don't seem to be understanding, is that the message poo poo like that sends to non-white people, might not be the same message that it sends to white people. Majorian posted:A few leftists do; not all of them. More are beginning to see religion and culture as things that aren't necessarily repressive or reinforcing of the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Riso posted:You must be new here. I seem to remember you saying the coast should be patrolled and refugees turned back and if they refuse, fired on and sunk in international waters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I seem to remember you saying the coast should be patrolled and refugees turned back and if they refuse, fired on and sunk in international waters. Weren't we discussing the legality of such a thing and then me pointing out Libya was completely powerless to stop Europeans sinking smugglers boats on their coast? And that would all be things that are unlikely to happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Riso posted:You must be new here. Or maybe there are other options that empathic human beings can come up with.those are hard though so we will probably skip them while the continent slips into pastoral racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:There have been articles about this very subject posted on here you clown. I could only find articles regarding german gastarbeiters in this thread, was this policy much more widespread in Europe than that? Andrast posted:Source? I think one or two of these might be behind paywall though. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830903250881 http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/njmr.2011.1.issue-1/v10202-011-0003-3/v10202-011-0003-3.xml http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/542.short
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Or maybe there are other options that empathic human beings can come up with.those are hard though so we will probably skip them while the continent slips into pastoral racism. The "empathic" option as you call it is used currently and it's not working because it just draws more and more people to Europe. As I quoted Trump much earlier, you can send them as humanely back as you want but they have to go back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Riso posted:Weren't we discussing the legality of such a thing and then me pointing out Libya was completely powerless to stop Europeans sinking smugglers boats on their coast? And that would all be things that are unlikely to happen? Oh that's right. It was the other xenophobe (hazzard?) who was saying sink the boats in international waters. You were saying sink them off the Libyan coast after towing them there from international waters. That's when you got banned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Riso even though you enjoy pretending you are tricking someone with your nonsense we all know how you feel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Legislating against cultural practices only drives them underground and causes people to cling more tightly to it. Letting it come out in the open exposes the cultural minority group in question to other cultural values that they often come to like and adopt themselves. That's how you get people to assimilate: through soft power. Doesn't a ban "expose" the traditional values to women in these situations so that they can start to question their own situation in life?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Dear Europeans, I'm sorry what you want to do is racist as hell and it interferes with you believing you are the light of civilization but it's not the refugees fault they make you feel like that and you shouldn't take it out on them. Lying to yourselves is just going to create more problems down the line, like how you thought if you put immigrants in ghettos and made them feel unwelcome they would leave after you finished with them but we all know all that did was create an underclass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:Doesn't a ban "expose" the traditional values to women in these situations so that they can start to question their own situation in life? No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, and what you don't seem to be understanding, is that the message poo poo like that sends to French people, might not be the same message that it sends to Americans. Which French people are you talking about - the white French majority, or all people living in France? quote:They're wrong. Nah, they're actually right. The fact that their views don't lead them to support bigoted laws targeted against already-oppressed minorities is pretty solid proof of that. freelancemoth posted:Doesn't a ban "expose" the traditional values to women in these situations so that they can start to question their own situation in life? No, for them it codifies the notion that it's Muslims vs. the West. Which is something that a smart society would try to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Banning pieces of clothing is not going to achieve much in the greater good of the world. You guys have been going on about that for 10 pages? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Ligur posted:Banning pieces of clothing is not going to achieve much in the greater good of the world. See people, even the resident finnish hitlernazi recognizes that this is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:45
|
|