|
I think that when people who I think probably identify as leftist, do actually argue in support of banning hijab, and a government has actually done that, regardless of whether I think they probably did it because they're xenophobic pricks, it is concerning. I don't really think it is irrational to dislike the possibility of it becoming a bipartisan issue.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
I don't really care about banning individual's things I care more about destroying the organization now tell me. How is are leftists "enforcing" sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
It was conservatives who banned the hijab from fear mongering of the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that in looking to oppose sexual repression, some positions seem to come rather close to mandating public sexuality, which I think should be entirely elective. What the hell does this even mean? How could you mandate public sexuality?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the hell does this even mean? How could you mandate public sexuality? The Egyptian Feminist Union was rather infamous for their lobbying of establishing mandatory weekly orgies in every major egyptian city while campaigning against the veil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the hell does this even mean? How could you mandate public sexuality? Burini ban for instance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Burini ban for instance. Was that actually supported by leftists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Burini ban for instance. Yes, I'm sure Morocco is trying to mandate public sexuality. Also again, what the hell does this have to do with leftists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Yes, I'm sure Morocco is trying to mandate public sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Do you support Morocco doing so? Also the leadfer of the Left Front supported the ban. Which is the successor of the communist party. Also quite a few secular if authoritarian regimes in Muslim countries started out on the left o the political spectrum, and they instututed opression against women wearing veils or head scarves. I do not support bans, I'm not against them, it entirely depends on the circumstances. I think they're pointless and any ideological push towards the left will kill the ban on its own in time. As they almost managed to do in Egypt and Turkey on their own until a resurgence of islamism, largely influenced by Saudi Arabia, took over the right. Also you're being hilariously melodramatic about the big bad nasty socialists and feminists of the middle east, but I guess it's at least a step up from claiming nonsense about how the only feminists who hate the veil are western white women. Maybe you should ask yourself why these countries which have a history and cultural experience of veiled women the left came to these conclusions. And please spare me the "these poor savages got influenced by the european left into believing the veil was bad" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I do not support bans, I'm not against them, it entirely depends on the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Maybe the person with weird sex hang-ups is the one frustrated by others voluntarily committing to abstinence? It's frustrating because it makes me sad to see people hurt themselves and others. In almost every case, voluntary abstinence is not good for either biological or psychological health. It also reinforces repressive beliefs in society, equating godliness or virtue to being abstinent or desexualizing yourself. It's all around unhealthy outside of extreme circumstances like sex addicts and abusers. It ties directly in with habits and veils and placing value in people's sexual "purity". The whole thing is a crock of poo poo that ultimately frames women's roles as a sexual receptacle and men's as sexual aggressors. So the reason a real leftist might have an issue with these things is because they are actually a part of the problem. Being able to hide behind ridiculous religious tradition to perpetuate this oppression and nonsense makes it that much more difficult to reach gender equality. And again no sane people are proposing bans on these or taking away women's agency to choose to wear their oppressive clothes. But it is something that should be publicly frowned upon and criticized. These milquetoast apologetics always manage to sidestep discussing the misogynistic consequences of supporting these traditions. Also don't forget that until the early 20th century women in America didn't wear clothes that showed their ankles in public because of all this religious based modesty. Women being able to break from the bonds of their constricting, decorative, and diminutive clothing definitely played a part in feminism and improving gender equality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
On the other hand suggesting that women who adopt religious dress codes are shameful and obviously not in their right minds and are clearly just self harming is not the most, uh, progressive message in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On the other hand suggesting that women who adopt religious dress codes are shameful and obviously not in their right minds and are clearly just self harming is not the most, uh, progressive message in the world. I never said we should call the women crazy? I said that the action of wearing those clothes should be pointed to as having negative effects on society, so maybe they should rethink their position. Progressivism and feminism isn't all sunshine and rainbows. You can't hold hands and sing with everyone until they get along. Negative social reinforcement is a huge part of cultural shifts. Like calling Black people the N word has been curtailed (not stopped unfortunately) through negative reinforcement, so too can carrying the torch for regressive practices in gender. It's a decades long multigenerational undertaking, not some blanket ban or unfiltered ostracizing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
I haven't ever found "hate the sin, not the sinner" particularly convincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I haven't ever found "hate the sin, not the sinner" particularly convincing. Stop obfuscating with this bigoted horse poo poo. That only applies to veiled attempts to legitimize hate for LGBTQ people. That's not the argument I made at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
It sure as hell sounds like it. I don't imagine that women are your desired target but I definitely think you're motivated primarily by arbitrary hatred of something and aren't particularly bothered about the collateral damage. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It sure as hell sounds like it. Collateral damage from education and debate? Did I advocate organized public shaming? I'm failing to see the hatred in moving away from archaic and gender binding clothing. Equating this to the hateful rhetoric surrounding homophobia is a load of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It sure as hell sounds like it. The disappearance of the veil as a cultural practice also went hand in hand with increasing educational opportunities with middle eastern women. Reminder that socialist afghanistan was the literal first and only regime in Afghanistan that even tried to loving make sure that women were literate. So again spare me the bullshit about those poor traditional women who are so horribly oppressed by literacy and cultural agency brought about by these nasty arab socialists and feminists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
"I don't want people to be individually shamed just a general nonspecific 'negative social reinforcement'" is not at all convincing. You know full well what that means and the most charitable explanation I can afford you is that you don't particularly care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Preferable solution: 1. Discrimination against women based on how they dress is given the same weight as you would racially motivated crime, hate crime, whatever, it's serious. 2. Organizations with which people "voluntarily" associate such as employers, clubs, schools etc, cannot use gendered language in the construction of dress codes, all dress codes must apply universally. 3. Heavily fund legal aid, women's shelters, other organizations focused on emancipating women and those in poverty from the limitations of their social circle. People have somewhere to go if they cannot get help within their normal social environment. 4. Mandatory public schooling, everyone gets the same basic education. Private schooling/homeschooling is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
frankly the religious are inherently dangerous creatures and have no place whatsoever in 21st century public life
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
It's true, we might splash spooky water on you and ask you to "die".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"I don't want people to be individually shamed just a general nonspecific 'negative social reinforcement'" is not at all convincing. You know full well what that means and the most charitable explanation I can afford you is that you don't particularly care. It's pretty simple. Don't make someone a spectacle in a crowd, and don't be condescending and aggressive. It's actually pretty easy to communicate to different sexes in a respectful manner You still haven't gotten around the base problem that these religious clothes reinforce gendered oppression. We can decide on the best way to try to phase this out of society, and you're the only one insinuating that we should be publicly shaming these women or sidelining them. OwlFancier posted:Preferable solution: This is basically what people against habits and veils are arguing. Nobody is saying to deny services, equal pay, or respect because a woman is wearing something. They can however be criticized, as they are using a tool of hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Preferable solution: The 3rd isn't even strictly feminist, overcoming the 'limitations of your social circle' is someone anyone in poverty is going to find useful, because that means being economically independent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:It's true, we might splash spooky water on you and ask you to "die". You also might try to affect policy based on what you imagine your imagined ghost dad presumably told some dead guy 2000 years ago. Not really ideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
I mean if he's imagined why a ghost and not real dad, ie "Oh, you ARE my dad." Or a trinidad Or a doodad Or an octodad Think more dadly
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I guess the truth does hurt - the mods' feelings. I have to say, after the probations the thread went quiet and then quickly became a bunch of fedora atheists arguing with a bunch of bad faith arguments ranging from "Have you ever considered the fact that maybe 18th Century Humanism was hella racist? Am I blowing your mind?" to "Let's go in depth with some Bible passages and thereby cede the argument via re-framing" and "Let's present the false choice of mandated sexual modesty vs sexual exhibitionism. Secularism means the government will mandate babies getting blowjobs!" Like, this reaffirms my view that people are hella dumb. Giving them a mandate to be dumber because their ur-daddy says so is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I have to say, after the probations the thread went quiet and then quickly became a bunch of fedora atheists arguing with a bunch of bad faith arguments ranging from "Have you ever considered the fact that maybe 18th Century Humanism was hella racist? Am I blowing your mind?" to "Let's go in depth with some Bible passages and thereby cede the argument via re-framing" and "Let's present the false choice of mandated sexual modesty vs sexual exhibitionism. Secularism means the government will mandate babies getting blowjobs!" I try to not be a fedora atheist, but I probably come across that way sometimes. It's really hard not to get flustered because almost nobody engages in good faith arguments when defending religions. It's constant goalpost shifting and reframing. I actually think religions have a lot of anthropological value and spiritualism has a fascinating history with development of civilizations and social movements. Still think it's all wrong though and causes more problems than it helps with in the modern world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
I can recognize the value of phlogiston theory while recognizing it has no place in the modern world. Hot take: Phlogiston theory belongs in the dustbin of history!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I can recognize the value of phlogiston theory while recognizing it has no place in the modern world. Same thing with the spheres theory. Geocentrism wasn't a ridiculous idea like Flat Earth nonsense. It appeared as though everything circles around us, with a few minor exceptions, the planets. Which actually comes from the word for wanderer, because they change their positions in the stars over a period of years. There was seriously complex math for how it all worked too and it made sense in that construct. Until Copernicus and Kepler blew that wide open. But geocentrism also belongs in the dustbin of history because it's obviously completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
There is a finesse to my metaphor, though. Defenders of religion, when not appealing to ignorance, will speak to the importance of moral education. This is an area where I agree with defenders of religion. But, like Phlogiston theory, reality is the opposite. Dephlogistonated air is just pure oxygen. In terms of moral education, we aren't corrupted beings that decorrupt through religion. We are moral beings that realize ourselves through actualization. Religion, from a metrics perspective, appears to retard or possibly even prevent this actualization. Ash is pure phlogistonated matter and oxygen is purely dephlogistonated air. Ash heap of history indeed!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:I mean if he's imagined why a ghost and not real dad, ie "Oh, you ARE my dad." He's a ghost dad because ghosts aren't real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:I mean if he's imagined why a ghost and not real dad, ie "Oh, you ARE my dad." He's a pretty bad dad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:He's a pretty bad dad. A mother drowns her children and people call her insane. Ghost-dad drowns his children and people call him the perfect being. Is this proof Christians are misogynists? Yes, yes it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Actually god is genderless, as is the soul, and only through a constant cycle of death and rebirth can we truly realise salvation. It's extremely sexist to gender my god you prick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Take it up with the sexist theists who call him Father then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
They're not in this thread though are they.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
He should have used fire instead of flooding, tbh Noah's Blimp sounds good and would drive people even more nuts. "NO WAY that thing stays aloft!" Plus Answers in Genesis, "The rising heat from the flames gave it extraordinary power to resist gravity's pull, etc."
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:They're not in this thread though are they. Random heretics like that aren't really relevant to the discussion though . . .
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:43
|
|