|
aphid_licker posted:There was a cool article on I think Zeit recently about the different things muslim women / teens try to achieve with the veil/headscarf and the different ways in which they succeed and fail. In my very important white male opinion it's a bad thing to intervene about because you have to police and aggravate a lot of people for a thing that's even if you assume the worst case scenario of why it's worn kinda within the bounds of lovely stuff you are generally accepted to be allowed to inflict on your gf/wife/kid, ie mid-intensity slut shaming. Coming from CSU/AfD it's very transparently just an attempt to gently caress with people to make them feel less welcome, like policing minarets etc etc. Ehrenmord is the opposite example, few cases in comparison and well outside the bounds of the acceptable so yeah it's okay to be against that I'm thinking I might take the same position on full veiling as on Syria - yeah, it's really bad, but we have a long track record of making everything much worse with our interventions, so we shouldn't intervene and just let the lovely thing happen. But maybe it should be illegal to force your underaged daughters to be stuffed inside a full-on niqab, much like we don't let them get major cosmetic surgery either. ... we don't allow that, right? 14 year olds can't transform themselves into cat people? All of my libertarian instincts stop at children.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:Uh, what? RabbitWizard posted:I was really serious when I said I had no Idea if this is Unterdrückung or für Gott. Explain like you would to a child. I have a very small circle of people I interact with in my life and I only had close contact with a Muslim man once and that topic didn't come up. And I was serious when I said it depends on your definition of Zwang. I have no idea how to explain the concept of free will to a child. It's the most abstract concept I can think of. Of course there are women who wear a Niqab without the direct threat of physical violence by their husband/father/brother/the revolutionary guard. But what if it's just "something you do" in their family? Is that Zwang? What if it's expected in their village/region/county? What if they freely choose to adhere to this religious rule, but everyone who decides how this rule is to be interpreted is a man with a lot more power than them? Is that really a reasonably free choice? These aren't rhetorical questions. And your comparison with your own religious upbringing was a bad comparison, because you were a child, which means that your parents decide for you. We, as a society, are okay with parents having control over their children to a certain degree. We're not okay with a husband having the same control over his wife, because the wife is an adult and has the same rights as her husband. Cingulate posted:much like we don't let them get major cosmetic surgery either. Yes, we do allow that. I think there are people calling for a ban on cosmetic surgery for minors, but they haven't had any success so far. Peggotty fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Wife/girlfriend, ok, maybe. What about your underaged daughter? Parents can force their children to do a lot of poo poo even if the kids don't want it, like being part of the Catholic Church (you can only leave at 14), or go to the summer camp, or take these meds, or wear only pullovers and no tank tops and surely not these shoes, but those over there. So why is it different with head scarves or Nijab? Because it is the most visible expression of "The Other" we fear so much? Although parents who force their girls before puberty to wear head-scarves and other poo poo are idiots in the first place and don't even know their own religion. But generally, instead of Verbote (especially if it is done as stupid as in Austria, where you have now to look at the Police Twitter to know if you can use scarves in autumn) we should give women and girls the ability to choose for themselves how they want to dress? Forbidding clothing is the old puritan men-controlling-what-woman-can-and-can't-do dressed up as "liberating women from the evil patriarchy". It's disgusting when the Iranian morality police fines women not wearing head scarves, but a expression of Western values if Austrian police fines women for wearing a Nikab (a problem that's in the first place confined to a handful of women in the country outside of rich Saudi princes touristing with their wives). Decius fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Randler posted:Die Idee ist, dass man sowas nach der Antwort wieder rauseditiert. Gute Arbeit mit dem Zitat also! Ich finde man sollte anderen auch die Chance lassen excel spread sheets anzulegen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Wife/girlfriend, ok, maybe. What about your underaged daughter? The thing is though, when you see a 14 y/o running around with a face veil on, her parents are probably just as horrified as you are. Choosing super-radical Islam has become a form of teenage rebellion among second gen immigrants, and I suspect the motive for wearing the full black bag getup is similar to what makes some other teenagers get 20 face piercings and a mohawk. Decius posted:Parents can force their children to do a lot of poo poo even if the kids don't want it, like being part of the Catholic Church (you can only leave at 14), or go to the summer camp, or take these meds, or wear only pullovers and no tank tops and surely not these shoes, but those over there. So why is it different with head scarves or Nijab? Because it is the most visible expression of "The Other" we fear so much? Although parents who force their girls before puberty to wear head-scarves and other poo poo are idiots in the first place and don't even know their own religion. And the little kids who wear headscarves probably aren't being forced either, they're from religious families and get to feel all grown up and religious for wearing them. That said the only normal headscarf-wearing teenage girl I knew personally also said her parents will kill her if she dates an Alevite, but that was probably an exaggeration. She's stopped wearing it since and is dating an infidel and not dead. My personal opinion is that people can wear headscarves in their free time as much as they please, but if they're representing the state as teachers or other kinds of Beamte they need to take it off. That's because a certain style of headscarf is a symbol of a very specific religious ideology. I wouldn't want a teacher to show up to class in a full Punker outfit either, but I don't know if there is any way to write that law without either violating the "religious discrimination" ban or banning some ridiculous things like tiny religious necklaces for a sense of fairness. W/r/t face veils, I think the same laws should apply to them as to any face covering, i.e. you have to remove it whenever it's required to interact with an official of either gender, and private institutions are allowed to ban it from their premises. Burka ban is probably pretty useless. Also, the "men forcing themselves on women's outfits" argument is kinda weak, it's not like all the legislators and / or all people who dislike head or face veils are men.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Moral panic leading to stupid Sittengesetze is like 90% of what we do all day as a species. I'm not sure how we even have enough time left in the day to do anything else like farming& war
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Decius posted:Parents can force their children to do a lot of poo poo even if the kids don't want it, like being part of the Catholic Church (you can only leave at 14), or go to the summer camp, or take these meds, or wear only pullovers and no tank tops and surely not these shoes, but those over there. So why is it different with head scarves or Nijab? Because it is the most visible expression of "The Other" we fear so much? Although parents who force their girls before puberty to wear head-scarves and other poo poo are idiots in the first place and don't even know their own religion. And if it only affects touristing Saudis, then hell yeah. Force the men to wear cute pink veils and the women to wear Spider-Man outfits for all I care. The idea of letting kids choose seems rather ill thought through to me - kids are hella dumb. So we let adults choose. But that also means we have to put some restrictions on what they can do to their kids. We force them to go to school, we don’t let them buy tobacco. Are we at exactly the right set of restrictions right now? Surely not. Should burqa et al be a part of it? Maybe. I don’t know about banning it in other (eg official) contexts, I find much of the libertarian argument convincing, though my mom doesn’t allow it in many contexts, and my mom is probably given much better intuitions than I am. E.: I consider the “would you ban punks?” thing an unconvincing argument. Punks aren’t a social group capable of and committed to sexist oppression of women on a significant scale. The relevant comparison isn’t punks, but Nazi skins, and yes, I think Wahhabism is mich closer to that than to punkdom. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
pidan posted:My personal opinion is that people can wear headscarves in their free time as much as they please, but if they're representing the state as teachers or other kinds of Beamte they need to take it off. That's because a certain style of headscarf is a symbol of a very specific religious ideology. I wouldn't want a teacher to show up to class in a full Punker outfit either, but I don't know if there is any way to write that law without either violating the "religious discrimination" ban or banning some ridiculous things like tiny religious necklaces for a sense of fairness. We are still talking about Bavaria? Land of the Kreuze neben der Klassentafel and Kreuze und Bibel im Gerichtssaal? Personally I would also remove all this poo poo (as atheist), but currently there are different standards used and discussed in the public debate. quote:Also, the "men forcing themselves on women's outfits" argument is kinda weak, it's not like all the legislators and / or all people who dislike head or face veils are men. It would be weak if the three branches were 50/50 split or near it. But they aren't. Reality is that it's mostly men regulating women. Sure, you find women too who will gladly regulate other women and especially Muslims. Women are just as stupid as men, both being stupid humans. But that should not serve as shield for a large male dominated system to legislate what boils down to morality laws. Cingulate posted:The idea of letting kids choose seems rather ill thought through to me - kids are hella dumb. So we let adults choose. But that also means we have to put some restrictions on what they can do to their kids. We force them to go to school, we don’t let them buy tobacco. Are we at exactly the right set of restrictions right now? Surely not. Should burqa et al be a part of it? Maybe. Cingulate posted:I'm thinking I might take the same position on full veiling as on Syria - yeah, it's really bad, but we have a long track record of making everything much worse with our interventions, so we shouldn't intervene and just let the lovely thing happen. Cingulate posted:You just ignored a lot of discussion about how it’s a rather complicated question of what it means to freely choose to take part in your own oppression, in particular for minors. Maybe try this for your own intuitions: what about a girl who asks for genital mutilation? (About half of supporters of FGM, and most practitioners, are women.) Well you seem to argue for parents telling their kids to wear what they say they should (a Nikab for example) but also that we should not allow parents to choose for their children to wear what the parents want, so I don't know what you are arguing for, and I really don't want another 3 day/10 pages Cingulate rant like we had last time  Regarding Austria: It not only affects Saudi women, because enough money buys you a Police that doesn't look too closely. It affects everyone just to legislate a handful (really a handful, there were less than 10 cases where the police fined a women wearing "Muslim garb"). It means you can't wear a scarf over your mouth and beanie riding your bike in autumn, because that would be Vermummung and that's Verboten unless it is cold enough - "cold enough" to be defined by the Police. You can't wear any full head cover unless it is "Kulturelles Brauchgut" like Halloween (yes, really), Fasching or Perchtenumzüge. Decius fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Decius posted:We are still talking about Bavaria? Land of the Kreuze neben der Klassentafel and Kreuze und Bibel im Gerichtssaal? Personally I would also remove all this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I would actually guess more pressure in this regard comes from women than from men. Though it’s not like I had numbers or privileged information. The response to „bibles and crosses“ is to allow the Quran and half moons too. This isn’t about preserving German Christian purity, at least not for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I would actually guess more pressure in this regard comes from women than from men. Though it’s not like I had numbers or privileged information. That would be horrible! The school is no place for religion. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That would be horrible! The school is no place for religion. this but unironically
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
I don’t see the harm in putting up a cross (or any other small symbol). The Bible you will not get around teaching either. The enlightenment and the very idea of tolerance came to form on the topic of religious tolerance. And religion simply is a fact of life. This isn’t Star Trek, and won’t be for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
You're wrong, I opted out of Religion and got taught Ethik instead of the Bible. It even arguably made me more tolerant then being told by religion how to be tolerant, since instead I spend a lot of extra time with my Muslimic Mitschülern, learning about their life directly. For some reason, direct contact worked better than religious bullshitting. (Integration didn't extend to actually teaching Muslim children their own religion, instead they were allowed to enter Ethics instead. I'm guessing this is not how it is done nowadays.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
I feel you’ve totally changed the topic here. I just said „I don’t mind people putting up crosses and half moons in schools“ and „if you don’t know about the Bible, you’re an uneducated prole not worth having conversations with go educate yourself lmao“ and you go all „Ethikunterricht“ on me. Also I’m not really all that convinced by your displayed religious tolerance
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don’t see the harm in putting up a cross (or any other small symbol). The Bible you will not get around teaching either. Religion is only responsible for the ideas of Enlightenment and Tolerance insofar as those were the antithesis and quite heavily opposed by the religious institutions at the time. Kinda silly now to pretend they're an achievement of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Religion is only responsible for the ideas of Enlightenment and Tolerance insofar as those were the antithesis and quite heavily opposed by the religious institutions at the time. Kinda silly now to pretend they're an achievement of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Religion is only responsible for the ideas of Enlightenment and Tolerance insofar as those were the antithesis and quite heavily opposed by the religious institutions at the time. Kinda silly now to pretend they're an achievement of Christianity. Eh, that's not really true. The Enlightenment as such wasn't a ready-made set of ideas or anything like that, but a school of philosophical, theological and political thought that was prominent in Europe for well over a century, but due to the amount of time and people involved in it is also a huge and highly complex tangle of ideas that sometimes even contradict themselves. The range of "enlightened" thinkers goes from open atheists to religious people who could do without the church as an earthly institution all the way to orthodox Catholics or Lutherans who tried to implement enlightened ideas into ecclesiastical and public administration. An important part of French enlightenment were the Jansensists, for example: highly religious Catholics who disagreed with the Pope on various theological and liturgical ideas. And why it is true that a small part of the Enlightenment was directed against the idea of religion as a whole and a larger part of it against the (catholic) church (which in turn is not too surprising, because many Enlightenment thinkers display a pretty egregious Protestant bias, and much of what they criticised about Catholicism suddenly wasn't a problem anymore when it happened in their own backyard), it would be absolutely amiss to deny that both Christianity and Enlightenment drink from the same philosophical well, and that even more the Enlightenment wasn't even an antithesis to Christianity, but more of a synthesis because many enlightened ideas were heavily inspired by Christian thought. I think people should generally be more careful when considering the "Enlightenment", because it's way more than simply "sapere aude" and some sweet burns by Voltaire. Equating the Enlightenment with tolerance is dangerous, because this always applies to only a subset of enlightened thought, because "tolerance" is as much a cultural term as anything else and therefore subject to a change in meaning, and because many enlightened ideas that were all the rage back then would seem absurd or even dangerous to us today, e.g. the idea of measuring a person's worth by how valuable they are to the state and its economy - something that was prominent in the actual policies of "enlightened" monarchs like Friedrich der Große or Joseph II of Austria but would seem horrendous now (not that this idea isn't still alive and well today under various other disguises). There is no secularism without the Enlightenment, but also no nationalism and no nuclear bomb, so simply doing as Stephen Pinker and his ilk do and going "Enlightenment = good" won't lead you very far in understanding Enlightenment itself or the role it played and continues to play in the modern world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Eh, that's not really true. The Enlightenment as such wasn't a ready-made set of ideas or anything like that, but a school of philosophical, theological and political thought that was prominent in Europe for well over a century, but due to the amount of time and people involved in it is also a huge and highly complex tangle of ideas that sometimes even contradict themselves. The range of "enlightened" thinkers goes from open atheists to religious people who could do without the church as an earthly institution all the way to orthodox Catholics or Lutherans who tried to implement enlightened ideas into ecclesiastical and public administration. An important part of French enlightenment were the Jansensists, for example: highly religious Catholics who disagreed with the Pope on various theological and liturgical ideas. And why it is true that a small part of the Enlightenment was directed against the idea of religion as a whole and a larger part of it against the (catholic) church (which in turn is not too surprising, because many Enlightenment thinkers display a pretty egregious Protestant bias, and much of what they criticised about Catholicism suddenly wasn't a problem anymore when it happened in their own backyard), it would be absolutely amiss to deny that both Christianity and Enlightenment drink from the same philosophical well, and that even more the Enlightenment wasn't even an antithesis to Christianity, but more of a synthesis because many enlightened ideas were heavily inspired by Christian thought. Edit: it's a really long thread, not just these two tweets. Why does anyone use twitter, it's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
It was a good thread though, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
Yeah thanks for that post Metternich. In school we learn enlightenment = good, but in all honesty no matter what side you're on you'll probably find that you both agree and disagree with various aspects of enlightenment thought. How did we get here from discussing Niqabs anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
pidan posted:Yeah thanks for that post Metternich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I feel you’ve totally changed the topic here. I just said „I don’t mind people putting up crosses and half moons in schools“ and „if you don’t know about the Bible, you’re an uneducated prole not worth having conversations with go educate yourself lmao“ and you go all „Ethikunterricht“ on me. Also I’m not really all that convinced by your displayed religious tolerance The key point is that there's a difference between teaching religion, and teaching about religion. Obviously you'll need to address the historical role of Christianity in a variety of topics, but that's different from preaching Christianity's religious tenets directly. That's also why the distinction between Ethik and (konfessionsgebundenem) Religionsunterricht is relevant: In the former, you're (ideally) taught about how and why people have come to construct particular ethical frameworks. In the latter, you're taught one of those frameworks specifically, andsee it presented as the superior and/or solely correct one (we still had our local Pastor come into class and preach to us directly, even). Shenanigans like crosses in classrooms distinctly lean towards the second category, representing essentially an endorsement of Christianity's weltanschauliche aspects in what should ostensibly be a neutral and secular institution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
Randler posted:Anwalt nehmen. Da gibt es grundsätzlich Möglichkeiten, das Ganze hängt aber u.a. von der konkreten Ausgestaltung des Angebots ab. Wenn es mehrere hundert Dollar sind, dann kann sich das mit dem Anwalt evtl. schon rechnen, weil das viele Anwälte auf dem Gebiet mittlerweile ein Standardvorgang sein dürfte, so wie früher die Verteidigung gegen Abmahnabzocker. Die Frage ist, ob sich der - wohl amerikanische - Anbieter davon beeindrucken lässt. Danke für den Input, ich bin grade außerhalb hhs und nehm meinen eigenen Anwalt für digitalrecht, der kennt mich schon von Abwehrungen frivolöser Forderungen als Kinder sich beim torrenten erwischen lassen haben. Mein pc auf dem die ganzen Daten wie Paypal gespeichert sind wird jetzt erstmal mit bios Passwort dichtgemacht damit sowas nicht mehr passiert.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I wouldn’t complain if Merkel would use her dictatorial powers for once to shut down MDR Saxony for good: https://twitter.com/mdr_sn/status/986177099353460736?s=21 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Eh, that's not really true. The Enlightenment as such wasn't a ready-made set of ideas or anything like that, but a school of philosophical, theological and political thought that was prominent in Europe for well over a century, but due to the amount of time and people involved in it is also a huge and highly complex tangle of ideas that sometimes even contradict themselves. The range of "enlightened" thinkers goes from open atheists to religious people who could do without the church as an earthly institution all the way to orthodox Catholics or Lutherans who tried to implement enlightened ideas into ecclesiastical and public administration. An important part of French enlightenment were the Jansensists, for example: highly religious Catholics who disagreed with the Pope on various theological and liturgical ideas. And why it is true that a small part of the Enlightenment was directed against the idea of religion as a whole and a larger part of it against the (catholic) church (which in turn is not too surprising, because many Enlightenment thinkers display a pretty egregious Protestant bias, and much of what they criticised about Catholicism suddenly wasn't a problem anymore when it happened in their own backyard), it would be absolutely amiss to deny that both Christianity and Enlightenment drink from the same philosophical well, and that even more the Enlightenment wasn't even an antithesis to Christianity, but more of a synthesis because many enlightened ideas were heavily inspired by Christian thought. SM, you should start a blog. Your histposts are well written and fun to read and you seem to have fun writing them. If you can get a good patreon going you might even earn a decent amount of beer money with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
echt? war zu lang, habs nicht gelesen
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:crosses in classrooms distinctly lean towards ... representing essentially an endorsement of Christianity's weltanschauliche aspects in what should ostensibly be a neutral and secular institution. Ok, I don't think we should have a giant dominating cross right above the blackboard. But if some school in Bavaria wants to have a nice tasteful cross hanging somewhere where otherwise you'd have posters of Leonardo DiCaprio or whomever people put up in classrooms these days, why not, as long as they'd allow a muslim student to do the same. My point is, yes, we don't want an explicitly christian classroom (giant dominating crosses), but I think asking for a removal of all aspects of religion would be too much. Goa Tse-tung posted:echt? war zu lang, habs nicht gelesen The latter has more emojis. System Metternich posted:It was a good thread though, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But if some school in Bavaria wants to have a nice tasteful cross hanging somewhere where otherwise you'd have posters of Leonardo DiCaprio or whomever people put up in classrooms these days, why not, as long as they'd allow a muslim student to do the same. yes i'm sure that policy would not magically get exploited in some bavarian backwater shitvillage, where christians are the norm and muslims are seen as the dirty invader horde. i'm sure the teachers and staff would make sure that we represent all religions equally and not make anybody feel unwelcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
*christliches abendland screeching intensifies*
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I wouldn’t complain if Merkel would use her dictatorial powers for once to shut down MDR Saxony for good:  loving hell
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
botany posted:yes i'm sure that policy would not magically get exploited in some bavarian backwater shitvillage, where christians are the norm and muslims are seen as the dirty invader horde. i'm sure the teachers and staff would make sure that we represent all religions equally and not make anybody feel unwelcome. 2. I don't think equal representation is the key - there is a lot of them! Just that the law should make explicit that what is ok for one religion is ok for another, and that if somebody wants to put up some religious piece of furniture, then that should be ok, if it means somebody else can also put up a sign of their religion. System Metternich posted:This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I wouldn’t complain if Merkel would use her dictatorial powers for once to shut down MDR Saxony for good:
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:1. "your policy of moderate leniency would not lead to perfect outcomes in Literally Redneck County, thus Everything Is Illegal for Everyone" quote:2. I don't think equal representation is the key - there is a lot of them! Just that the law should make explicit that what is ok for one religion is ok for another, and that if somebody wants to put up some religious piece of furniture, then that should be ok, if it means somebody else can also put up a sign of their religion. why? what is gained by allowing people to put religious symbols on display? we know that people will exploit this to push their christian views on others, so the pay-off had better be large enough to make up for this. so what's the gain?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
If there's even a small tasteful cross put up in the classroom it means the classroom's proprietor has designated that as the classroom's default state. This isn't remedied by allowing everyone else to put up their own symbols too. It's just "of course you can hang your Muslim symbol in our Christian classroom." Which brings me to the second point: not every religion has a representative token that can be hung up small and tasteful. In fact I'd argue Christianity is on a noticable advantage there. I don't even know what you'd hang up as a Muslim and the best I can think of for other religions is having one of those little altars to burn incense sticks. And why would it be allowed to specifically add religious symbols? What if you actively want to go to school in a nonreligious environment, do you get to take stuff off the walls?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:All of my libertarian instincts stop at children. You'd be the first libertarian to stop there lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Healbot posted:You'd be the first libertarian to stop there lol 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Healbot posted:You'd be the first libertarian to stop there lol 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:SM, you should start a blog. Your histposts are well written and fun to read and you seem to have fun writing them. If you can get a good patreon going you might even earn a decent amount of beer money with it. Thank you! Maybe I will offload all the effort posts I did here on another site  Cingulate posted:I'm not sure how to feel about this. Much like I think "Pseudoerasmus" would himself say it, I am in agreement with many points of Pinker, and agree with him more than with his critics (on these parts - can't stand him on many others). But is his actual point weakened by his poor scholarship? To what extent can the Pro-Pop-Enlightenment message be salvaged in the face of the real enlightenment being so much more complex? Well, first as a historian a guy like Pinker just slaughtering his way through history and spreading outright falsehoods (in a Spiegel interview he did lately he honestly claimed that the Enlightenment did away with nationalism and racism, lmao) drives me absolutely insane. One of two main points of his new book is that the Enlightenment is responsible for virtually everything what is good in our modern world, and everything that is not good is either a remnant of an earlier and darker time or the product of dangerous counter-enlightenment movements/the Enlightenment's defensive reaction to them. Which is absolutely, irredeemably wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to count, outside of the fact that it represents a teleological view of history that's plainly ridiculous. Given the fact that Pinker seems to equate "Enlightenment" with "liberal, secular western democracy" (where interestingly he isn't that wrong about, because the Enlightenment was 100% a western thing and wouldn't make sense outside of that specific cultural context) this also opens a dangerous door to subsequent "white man's burden"-style thinking, i.e. that the unruly non-enlightened masses need to be civilised for their own good. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that Pinker is explicitly promoting this, but elevating "the Enlightenment" onto a pedestal and saying that in order to be "enlightened" everybody has to emulate western culture has been used before to justify imperialism in countless little and big ways. Secondly, the statistics. Pinker presents a fuckton of them across several books, trying to prove his point that a) "progress" is measurable, and it is happening and b) that "the Enlightenment" is responsible for it. I'm not able to discuss many of his graphs and statistics (just because there are so many of them), but his willingness to poo poo on all of established historiography makes me suspect of the data at the very least. "Hard" data points can easily be fudged, or (more likely) represented in a biased way as well, after all. I can at least say that: a) the fact that for the most part detailed statistics on a variety of topics are only available after the mid-19th century make it easy to prove that the Enlightenment is responsible for everything noble and good when you simply assume that before ~1800 everything was poo poo und unchaning in contrast. Pinker's thesis would collapse when "progress" as he defines it would be observable before the Enlightenment era, and (lucky for him) it isn't, because we simply don't have the data. b) To get a little more specific: Pinker's claim that wars cost less and less lives as time goes on is suspect because it ignores the absolute horror of two world wars - it is only since 1945 that wars have gotten progressively less deadly, and even then the body count of e.g. Iraq or the various Congo wars can only be estimated in the roughest sense. Pinker says that the World Wars and other 20th century horrors like the Holocaust or the Holodomor are the product of anti-Enlightenment thinking, but again: this is plainly absurd. c) To get really specific: His claim that rape is on the decline (he claims that rapes are "often over-reported" in his 2011 book "The Better Angels of Our Nature") are based on an op-ed and a book, both by known right-wingers that try to prove that feminists ruin western civilisation, and another paper that is very much not part of the general scholarly consenus, to put it mildly. The twitter thread below (sorry for linking twitter again, I know that reading threads there is a pain in the rear end  ) discusses Pinker's dubious sources in more detail and gives an additional example in a homicide statistics that repeats data from a source that is known to be wildly inaccurate. This begs the question: if his data on these two points is sketchy, than what about the rest of his work?https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/972957975362056200 I have no idea about Pinker's work as a neurologist, but he should very much Shut The gently caress Up about history, and to me it seems like much of the data he is using to show that everything is getting better is cherrypicked by him to prove an already existing theory, which is bad scholarship and bad science rolled in one. Smirr posted:
https://twitter.com/MDR_SN/status/986190920595968000 jfc, gently caress those guys Healbot posted:You'd be the first libertarian to stop there lol lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Oh god I got turbofucked by the tax with a Nachzahlung and now they say that I have to do Vorauszahlungen for 2018?? I just had the normal Abzüge off my Lohnzettel so I don't even understand how there is a Nachzahlung, wasn't everything versteuert already? What is the Vorauszahlung for? I am unlikely to make as much in 2018 as I did in 2017 so that's gonna suck. Did my Arbeitgeber gently caress up somehow? Can I get out of the Vorauszahlungen if I tell them that I don't have as much money this year? Is there like a Steuerberater for poors that can help me figure out what went wrong? They want half a loving Monatsbrutto
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Oh god I got turbofucked by the tax with a Nachzahlung and now they say that I have to do Vorauszahlungen for 2018?? I just had the normal Abzüge off my Lohnzettel so I don't even understand how there is a Nachzahlung, wasn't everything versteuert already? What is the Vorauszahlung for? I am unlikely to make as much in 2018 as I did in 2017 so that's gonna suck. Did my Arbeitgeber gently caress up somehow? Can I get out of the Vorauszahlungen if I tell them that I don't have as much money this year? Is there like a Steuerberater for poors that can help me figure out what went wrong? They want half a loving Monatsbrutto you lick the aphids you get the horns.aiff
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:30
|
|