|
Ligur posted:Banning pieces of clothing is not going to achieve much in the greater good of the world. I think it's more about how these small things always seem to snowball very quickly. But still you make a good point and act as the voice of reason here. This is it. This is where we're at, now. 
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
Ligur posted:Banning pieces of clothing is not going to achieve much in the greater good of the world. Now I'm confused, isn't this the kind of thing you'd usually get behind? Why not here? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Andrast posted:See people, even the resident finnish hitlernazi recognizes that this is a bad idea. Well the other thing is that I find it unbelievable there is a vast contingent of posters who cannot get around the idea that "if someone disagrees with MY opinion about migration, he must be a racist, satan HITLER-NAZI" which is quite ridiculous. Of course not, if you live in your own internet echo chamber where almost everyone agrees, then you can gang up on the lone poster who disagreed and bask in the light of your moral supremacy with ur smart posting buddies  MiddleOne posted:Now I'm confused, isn't this the kind of thing you'd usually get behind? Why not here? No I'm not and I have not ever been. Because you are you, you just bundle me (and anyone who disagrees with a certain position vis a vis migration) = hitlernazi. If you just read posts and listened to people you would know this isn't a common position or supported by "what u would get behind". Ligur fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Well the other thing is that I find it unbelievable there is a vast contingent of posters who cannot get around the idea that "if someone disagrees with MY opinion about migration, he must be a racist, satan HITLER-NAZI" which is quite ridiculous. It was supposed to be a joke since you get accused of that a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Andrast posted:It supposed to be a joke. It seriously doesn't seem to be a joke tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Ligur do you think that passing laws targeted at minority groups will help them assimilate? I don't, also I find it disturbing considering Europe's history. Do you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Ligur posted:It seriously doesn't seem to be a joke tbh. I disagree with you on most things but I really don't think you're a nazi or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
What about the lack of real birthright citizen ship in many countries? Do you think that helps them assimilate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
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? It really doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:What about the lack of real birthright citizen ship in many countries? Do you think that helps them assimilate? What do you mean by "assimilate"? Or do you mean integrate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Ligur do you think that passing laws targeted at minority groups will help them assimilate? I don't, also I find it disturbing considering Europe's history. Do you? You are one of the worst thread shitters in this, uhh, thread, with your incessant screaming about race (I know you have some issues with that, just don't project that on other people, try not to do that even once though you feel you can't help as a "test run"), so this is the first and last time I will reply to you, but I don't think banning clothing will help anyone assimilate. Neither do I think it will result in the second holohitelrcaust but it's just useless dabbling and reactionary... understandable perhaps from some POV, but not going to help more than maybe avoid another riot in a Corsican beach. Andrast posted:I disagree with you on most things but I really don't think you're a nazi or anything. Ok that's a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It really doesn't. So what is the left wing solution then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which French people are you talking about - the white French majority, or all people living in France? Majorian posted: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. As for my own view on this subject, I'm seeing a lot of similarity with captialism. Neuter it enough, and people forget why it got neutered in the first place. Religion might be relatively harmless for many people in the West, but that's only because it doesn't have much political power. The moment it does, it's almost invariably a bad thing. (Even if it can serve a positive role among the politically weak groups, to increase cohesion and morale in the face of great opposition.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:So what is the left wing solution then? Don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:French people. The fact that you apparently don't understand the distinction is kind of emblematic of the problem. Ideally, "French people" = all citizens of France. In practice, "French people" = white non-immigrants only.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The fact that you apparently don't understand the distinction is kind of emblematic of the problem. Ideally, "French people" = all citizens of France. In practice, "French people" = white non-immigrants only. Do you actually have any idea what the non-white population of France thinks about it or are you just projecting your own opinion onto them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The fact that you apparently don't understand the distinction is kind of emblematic of the problem. Ideally, "French people" = all citizens of France. In practice, "French people" = white non-immigrants only.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The fact that you apparently don't understand the distinction is kind of emblematic of the problem. Ideally, "French people" = all citizens of France. In practice, "French people" = white non-immigrants only. The biggest problem seems to be the equation of "someone systematically oppressed in every aspect of their life" with "I can't say what I want about dirty foreigners". It reminds me of a similar thing going on right now in the US, where there's a large group of people equating "not being given preferential treatment on absolutely everything" with "unfair" because they're been the majority for so long. That black person got the job I was applying for, he can't have been more qualified than me it must be the PC POLICE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Do you actually have any idea what the non-white population of France thinks about it or are you just projecting your own opinion onto them? I do know how discriminated Muslims in France feel, actually, because a lot of academic research has been conducted on the issue. Check out the Amnesty International study I posted earlier, or the one cited in this Washington Post article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
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? quote: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? So here's the thing that will hopefully help you understand the issue put forward here. The burqa, here, is presented by racists, militant secularists, etc. as a symbol of the oppression of women in traditional Islamic societies. That is a valid symbolism that you can realistically make. Some people will do that because they actually believe in that and want the emancipation of women from those repressive social structures. Some others will do it because it's an opportunity to rip on the brown people. Whatever the case, that is a valid interpretation of the burqa as a symbol. No-one is going to argue against that, and if they do, then they're idiots, because the ideology behind that mode of dress is inherently sexist anti-feministic bullshit, that you will find in most religions, and for all of those you can pick a relevant item and choose to use it to symbolise that. You can pick the Christian cross and say it's a symbol of traditional-value Christians like the guys in the quiverfull movement. You can take the magic underwear and say it's a symbol of Mormon sexism. You can do those things. And now that I've said that, it should be very easy for you to see the other point of this argument, which is that banning or discriminating against those things will absolutely not help those communities adopt more progressive values. At best you could make the argument that it would force them to disconnect with their religion and so drop the ideological backbone behind their traditional values over generations, and you cannot prove it would accomplish that, nor can you claim it would be a victory for the progressive values, because lovely regressive behaviour is only symbolised by the object and is not embodied in it. A ban on the burqa is not going to make European muslims more secular, and it's not going to make them change how they treat women. The only thing you have left is a a vague hope that in the future their kids will go "yeah, whatever, I didn't grow up with burqas so idgaf"*. It's a feelgood measure. And at the same time? You're doing harm. You are intervening in the lives of people who happily and by their own choice pick that mode of wear, and you put them through poo poo. You are prosecuting them for something they don't have a part in. Worse still, you're not even prosecuting them for that, but for something relevant to it that is nevertheless different. A woman wearing a burqa, in itself, is not being oppressed. A woman being forced to wear a burqa is. But you don't care for the latter, only for the former. So instead of letting people choose what they want to wear themselves by freeing the woman being forced to wear the burqa from that obligation you instead force every woman to wear something else. You are being the patronising figure here, telling others what's good for them rather than freeing them from their traditional values to choose for themselves. This is not even touching on how racists latch on to those things to discriminate against others. This is assuming "best intentions" from the person in favour of banning or discriminating against that symbol. *And that poo poo doesn't even work, just look at the CPRF to see how well state atheism worked in the USSR for instance. Look at Turkey, which, if memory serves me right, since its inception had a ban on religious symbols in public services and see how well that's worked out for them. You instil secular values in a population by showing them that they can fulfil themselves through them, not by discriminating against them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Ligur posted:You are one of the worst thread shitters in this, uhh, thread, with your incessant screaming about race (I know you have some issues with that, just don't project that on other people, try not to do that even once though you feel you can't help as a "test run"), so this is the first and last time I will reply to you, but I don't think banning clothing will help anyone assimilate. Neither do I think it will result in the second holohitelrcaust but it's just useless dabbling and reactionary... understandable perhaps from some POV, but not going to help more than maybe avoid another riot in a Corsican beach. I don't see how telling people passing laws targeting minorities is racist can be called thread making GBS threads, but then again you're ligur.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Don't. So no "Opium of the people" solution then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I do know how discriminated Muslims in France feel, actually, because a lot of academic research has been conducted on the issue. Check out the Amnesty International study I posted earlier, or the one cited in this Washington Post article. We're still talking about the comic and not discrimination in general, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Andrast posted:We're still talking about the comic and not discrimination in general, right? I've been trying to talk about it in general but for some reason people keep focusing on certain issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:So no "Opium of the people" solution then? Karl Marx posted:Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Andrast posted:We're still talking about the comic and not discrimination in general, right? As far as that particular comic is concerned, I don't know for certain how French Muslims feel about it. Given how discriminated they feel in general, though, I think it's pretty fair to surmise that they're not fans of being portrayed as monkeys. e: Evidently the fact that it was satire wasn't much comfort to the boy's dad. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:So what is the left wing solution then? Solution to what, the horror you have at seeing someone who's visibly Muslim? Stop being such a baby about clothes, that's the solution to that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Solution to what, the horror you have at seeing someone who's visibly Muslim? Stop being such a baby about clothes, that's the solution to that. I think he means how the left would stop patriarchal norms in immigrant groups, which are often somewhat intertwined with their religion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Treating them like adults with brains" = "seeing them as so untrustworthy that we can't allow them to wear hijabs or burqinis." Got it. You must be confusing me with the nebulous mass of Those People you're arguing against, I'm commenting on how you preemptively want to shield people from the lifelong trauma of seeing a CH cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Fox Cunning posted:I think he means how the left would stop patriarchal norms in immigrant groups, which are often somewhat intertwined with their religion. I don't think you can really do much to stop it besides giving people opportunities to make free choices while leading by example and making it clear that gender equality is (or should be) a fundamental principle of our society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:I think he means how the left would stop patriarchal norms in immigrant groups, which are often somewhat intertwined with their religion. It's not really that difficult: create mechanisms for women to live as they want to live (whether that be in a conservative religious group or otherwise), and then let them come to the majority culture's values on their own volition. Trying to force them to assimilate just creates resistance and unintended consequences, like increased DAESH recruitment. Andrast posted:I don't think you can really do much to stop it besides giving people opportunities to make free choices while leading by example and making it clear that gender equality is (or should be) a fundamental principle of our society. Exactly. blowfish posted:You must be confusing me with the nebulous mass of Those People you're arguing against, I'm commenting on how you preemptively want to shield people from the lifelong trauma of seeing a CH cartoon. When did I ever say anything remotely resembling "CH should be censored"? I've been talking about a specific CH cartoon as a symptom of European xenophobia, and as something that furthers the marginalization of minority groups. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:And at the same time? You're doing harm. You are intervening in the lives of people who happily and by their own choice pick that mode of wear, and you put them through poo poo. You are prosecuting them for something they don't have a part in. Worse still, you're not even prosecuting them for that, but for something relevant to it that is nevertheless different. A woman wearing a burqa, in itself, is not being oppressed. A woman being forced to wear a burqa is. But you don't care for the latter, only for the former. So instead of letting people choose what they want to wear themselves by freeing the woman being forced to wear the burqa from that obligation you instead force every woman to wear something else. You are being the patronising figure here, telling others what's good for them rather than freeing them from their traditional values to choose for themselves. A discriminatory clothing for women only so to protect her "modesty" is not sexist? And she is only wearing it because of her own "free will"? Sorry, but I cannot see how the left wing are supposed to be for womens rights when they relativise patriarchal oppression. Regardless of whatever the right is saying or doing. (By the way, I am not for a burqa ban. I just want to explore how the left wing and right wing see the issue.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:A discriminatory clothing for women only so to protect her "modesty" is not sexist? And she is only wearing it because of her own "free will"? Sorry, but I cannot see how the left wing are supposed to be for womens rights when they relativise patriarchal oppression. Regardless of whatever the right is saying or doing. That's because you're not even bothering to actually read what I'm saying. I can't help you if you cannot discern the difference between a woman being forced by her society to wear the burqa and a woman that chooses to do so on her own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:I think he means how the left would stop patriarchal norms in immigrant groups, which are often somewhat intertwined with their religion. For starters, don't institute horribly patriarchal laws of your own, like declaring women can't wear clothing they want, because you're scared of seeing someone who isn't exactly the same as you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's not really that difficult: create mechanisms for women to live as they want to live (whether that be in a conservative religious group or otherwise), and then let them come to the majority culture's values on their own volition. Trying to force them to assimilate just creates resistance and unintended consequences, like increased DAESH recruitment. I agree, it seems to have worked rather well when the influences from the mother country is weak from what I've seen. In enclaves with little cultural influence from the native culture I don't see the same development though, and forcing them to change will just breed antagonism as we've discussed. You do as your neighbors basically, at least to a degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
true.spoon posted:These topics surrounding immigration and cultural identity are pretty interesting to me and it is clear that a better approach needs to be found in Europe. This makes it all the more unfortunate that the discussion always devolves quickly into a useless slapfight. I will try to untangle some of the fundamental cultural differences leading to seemingly irreconcilable points of view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:That's because you're not even bothering to actually read what I'm saying. I can't help you if you cannot discern the difference between a woman being forced by her society to wear the burqa and a woman that chooses to do so on her own. But it is a tool of oppression, this is something you cannot get around. And by banning the burqa the society can evolve beyond "traditional values" and "cultural relativism". A society can declare what is acceptable, and what isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:But it is a tool of oppression, this is something you cannot get around. And by banning the burqa the society can evolve beyond "traditional values" and "cultural relativism". A society can declare what is acceptable, and what isn't. Because that has always worked out so well in the past.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:But it is a tool of oppression, this is something you cannot get around. And by banning the burqa the society can evolve beyond "traditional values" and "cultural relativism". A society can declare what is acceptable, and what isn't. Banning the unfashionable clothes you hate isn't going to solve anything. I'm really quite sorry that it makes you freak out to see someone not dressed the same as you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:That's because you're not even bothering to actually read what I'm saying. I can't help you if you cannot discern the difference between a woman being forced by her society to wear the burqa and a woman that chooses to do so on her own. This is such a regular argument from people that know no distinction between public and private discourse; so if leftists don't support the usage of the burqa according to their personal values they obviously should support the banning of it's public use in society without anymore thought. I hear this all the time in the form of the dumb quip about how if one is against the business practices of mega technological giant multinationals one should be against the personal use of apple smartphones or whatever, it's pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:52
|
|