|
Cat Mattress posted:And in doing so, you poo poo over all those who are coerced into doing it against their will. Which is exactly nobody today. If I defend a black American person's right to call themselves the n-word, do I poo poo all over those who don't want to use it? If I defend a Chinese woman's right to bind her own feet, am I devaluing the horrors experienced by women who had no choice? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Sep 17, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:And in doing so, you poo poo over all those who are coerced into doing it against their will. You would have to first show that a significant number of women are coerced into doing so. And by significant, I mean a level equivalent to convince you to also ban high heels if a large enough percentage was determined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
You're not attacking ideology, you're flailing around make dumb analogies/hurling invectives. Attacking ideology would mean psychoanalyzing why liberal_leet or whoever acts the way they do. You respond with 'they're a bigot', then underline that several hundred times. Ah, but why? Would you go further? No, that's not you, at least not here. A pity. Instead you just melt down, which hurts yourself more than others.Smudgie Buggler posted:Which is exactly nobody today. edit: ah, but of course I didn't answer your question: I feel the second example is definitely true. There's no such thing as perfect consent, people can believe dumb things to rationalize trauma. I feel I can fairly accurately say that someone would not want to commit that kind of action unless they were placed in a position where other factors came in to play - they can't get married if they don't, they get thrown out of the household if they don't, etc. As such, it is never a simple choice between a) do dumb thing b) don't do dumb thing, so we're justified in destroying the social conditions that push women/anyone into ultimately self-destructive behavior, irregardless of whatever stockholm syndrome stuff they dream up for it. So by 'defending her right', you are ignoring those social conditions and are, in fact, devaluing the actual lived horrors of that social practice. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I feel absolutely justified in banning foot binding without regard to consent or the intent of the woman - it's a matter of public health as well. I disagree strongly that it's acceptable to tell a woman she can't make an autonomous choice to gently caress up her own feet with bandages, but OK. Let's find another example. How about corseting? Or is that too much of a public health concern as well? I mean, we can just go for the low-hanging fruit here I guess. Until really quite recently in Western societies it was considered scandalous for a woman to appear outside her home with bare arms. This was a highly misogynistic norm, born of the exact same obsessive sexualisation of women's bodies by men as spawned the niqab. In light of this, do you consider it acceptable to even so much as suggest a woman ought not wear a long sleeved shirt when there is no practical reason (such as hot weather) for her to do so? quote:The n-word example is subtler, the same intent is there but obviously the consequences aren't as severe (nevermind the precedent of banning speech on whatever grounds). Please draw a clear and ethically relevant distinction between self-expression via vocalisation and self-expression via adornment. rudatron posted:edit: ah, but of course I didn't answer your question: I feel the second example is definitely true. There's no such thing as perfect consent, people can believe dumb things to rationalize trauma. I feel I can fairly accurately say that someone would not want to commit that kind of action unless they were placed in a position where other factors came in to play - they can't get married if they don't, they get thrown out of the household if they don't, etc. Or they're just really weird. People do all sorts of insane poo poo to their bodies. Foot binding sounds pretty terrible to me, but no more so than a whole host of body modifications that plenty of people pay money to get done. quote:As such, it is never a simple choice between a) do dumb thing b) don't do dumb thing, so we're justified in destroying the social conditions that push women/anyone into ultimately self-destructive behavior, irregardless of whatever stockholm syndrome stuff they dream up for it. So by 'defending her right', you are ignoring those social conditions and are, in fact, devaluing the actual lived horrors of that social practice. I simply disagree that it is never a choice between a) and b) like that, for the reasons above. People want to do weird dumb things all the time. In fact, I think the choice to wear a niqab has far greater potential for instrumental rationality than, say, a face tattoo. A niqab affords anonymity, it obviates a lot of concerns about being scrutinised for your hair and facial characteristics etc. In the right weather it could even conceivably be very comfortable. I can see reasons why even men would maybe think, "Hey, I think I'll throw this on today", even if I know I wouldn't. This is nothing like as clear cut as you're making out. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You would have to first show that a significant number of women are coerced into doing so. Take any town taken over by the Talibans, Daesh, Boko Haram, or other similar jihadist groups; the first thing that happens is that they veil all the women here. Are you claiming it doesn't happen? Or that it doesn't count because it's not in Europe that it happens? That the veil is being imposed on women in Muslim districts of European towns was precisely the reason why groups like NPNS, which I already mentioned, fought to have it banned by law. A bare-headed woman without the protection of a ban is insulted, spit upon, raped, and murdered. These things loving happen, you bloody apologists. Oh but no, we are enlightened and anti-racist, so we whole-heartedly endorse, support and encourage aggressive sexism and the victimization of women, it makes us feel so progressive. Here's some articles that are not being written by WASP men from the USA, but by Muslim women -- which means that you will ignore what they have to say, they're not good Muslim women, a good Muslim woman shuts up and obey. But sorry, I want you to listen to them anyway. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown posted:Of even more concern are young Muslim lives. Little girls are being asked to don hijabs and jilbabs, turned into sexual beings long before puberty. You can even buy stretchy baby hijabs with fake Calvin Klein and Versace logos. Saira Khan posted:Girls as young as four are wearing the hijab to school: that is not a freely made choice. It stops them taking part in education and reaching their potential, and the idea that tiny children need to protect their modesty is abhorrent. I side with Muslim women who reject sexism and oppression. Feel free to side with the cops who protect rapists because it's more important to them to appear non-racist than it is to fight crime. computer parts posted:And by significant, I mean a level equivalent to convince you to also ban high heels if a large enough percentage was determined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Take any town taken over by the Talibans, Daesh, Boko Haram, or other similar jihadist groups; the first thing that happens is that they veil all the women here. Are you claiming it doesn't happen? Or that it doesn't count because it's not in Europe that it happens? They also mandate speaking Arabic, I suppose we should ban speaking Arabic too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You would have to first show that a significant number of women are coerced into doing so. I think we may fall into some sort of prejudice black hole, because a non-muslim lawmaker would go "it's common sense, no one would do this thing voluntarily, of course they are coerced, we help them by banning the thing, and thus my law is moral and disobedience against it not." The same lawmaker will ignore another thing because of course it's voluntary durr. And then you sue before the supreme court and roll the dice, but never are any statistics the driving factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
Wearing long sleeved shirts isn't in the same category, and indeed there are valid reason you would wear them. It's still coercive that women felt they had to, but it's not extreme enough to warrant intervention (the nature of that intervention itself would have to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate cases, ie- it's automatically too much work for too little a payoff). A corset- it depends on the corset, I'd have no difficulty banning egregious cases. Also I'm not actually arguing for a burqa ban, but since I'm not a liberal I'll take your liberalism on here: adornment isn't just expression, it can also aid/deny identification, obviously can have a practical purpose and acts as a signifier for group membership. You can't really deny reasonable practical use, but the other 2 are grounds for banning. Muslim women aren't spontaneously all agreeing to wear the same kind of clothing, it's a signifier of ideological commitment to fundamentalist islam, which may or may not be compatible with the society they're living in. I also think it's reasonable to, in a society that places value on names & faces, to deny people the right to anonymity in casual situations. And color me skeptical that ultra-conservative women are all doing the same thing because they just want to be 'weird'. Though even if you do want to be weird, I'd have no problem calling that as bullshit if the 'weirdness' is especially dangerous or self-harming. As an example, someone who is suicidal needs help, they're never just being 'weird' and it's okay to recognize that. It's okay to make judgements like that, super liberalism gets you nowhere. rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Don't count on me to defend high heels, I'd be fine in banning them even if only for all the medical problems they cause. Oh OK, wow, that's a really good reason. We'll get right around to banning high heels right after we've banned tobacco, alcohol, motorised transport, skydiving, fast food, treadmills, sugared drinks, vending machines, and dogs, all of which cause far more physical harm than a particular type of shoe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
But first they must ban everyone in this thread. Wait poo poo that's me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Oh OK, wow, that's a really good reason. We'll get right around to banning high heels right after we've banned tobacco, alcohol, motorised transport, skydiving, fast food, treadmills, sugared drinks, vending machines, and dogs, all of which cause far more physical harm than a particular type of shoe. Cigarettes get "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" labels on their packaging, selling alcohol to people under 21 is prohibited in the USA (at 18 you can drive a car, shoot a gun, star in a porn movie, but you can't buy a drink), you need licenses for operating most types of motorized vehicles, and also to own some types of dogs. Yeah, when a federal administration requires a certified rigger to check your high heel shoes before you put them on, you will be able to use a comparison to skydiving to laugh it off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
I'm not sure having "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" written on the burqa would help the situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not sure having "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" written on the burqa would help the situation. "this garment kills fascists"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wearing long sleeved shirts isn't in the same category, and indeed there are valid reason you would wear them. It's still coercive that women felt they had to, but it's not extreme enough to warrant intervention (the nature of that intervention itself would have to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate cases, ie- it's automatically too much work for too little a payoff). A corset- it depends on the corset, I'd have no difficulty banning egregious cases. Wait is this a serious argument for banning "looking Muslim"? If "this piece of clothing identified someone as part of an affiliation" is enough to justify banning them, when will we ban football jerseys? Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
No, it's a claim that group signification is valid grounds for banning, the qualification being whether it's valid to target that group. Targeting the group 'muslim' would not be justified. But there are groups you may want to do that to (KKK robes would fit). The non-racist argument for the burqa would be that it fits, not islam as a whole, but a certain strain of fundamentalist islam, which...I'm not sure is true? I'd like more statistics to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wearing sleeved shirts isn't in the same category, and indeed there are valid reason you would wear them. It's still coercive that women felt they had to, but it's not extreme enough to warrant intervention quote:A corset- it depends on the corset, I'd have no difficulty banning egregious cases.  - what justification can you possibly have that doesn't also catch someone's right to do this other nonsense -  - as well as everybody's right to drink and skydive and basically do as they please to themselves? quote:Also I'm not actually arguing for a burqa ban, but since I'm not a liberal I'll take your liberalism on here: adornment isn't just expression, it can also aid/deny identification, obviously can have a practical purpose and acts as a signifier for group membership. You can't really deny reasonable practical use, but the other 2 are grounds for banning. quote:Muslim women aren't spontaneously all agreeing to wear the same kind of clothing, it's a signifier of ideological commitment to fundamentalist islam, which may or may not be compatible with the society they're living in. quote:I also think it's reasonable to, in a society that places value on names & faces, to deny people the right to anonymity in casual situations. quote:And color me skeptical that ultra-conservative women are all doing the same thing because they just want to be 'weird'. quote:Though even if you do want to be weird, I'd have no problem calling that as bullshit if the 'weirdness' is especially dangerous or self-harming. It's a pretty reliable (but not perfect) indicator of there being some profoundly oppressive forces at work on the wearer. But I don't see how any outside force telling a person when they can and can't wear it actually frees anybody from the yoke of that oppression. It doesn't do the necessary work for it to even come close to justifying the restriction. Wearing a full head-to-toe covering, while unconventional in my culture, seems a lot less 'weird' to me than a lot of things people seem perfectly happy doing. I'm a guy, but I'd sooner walk through the centre of my town in a niqab than I would in nothing but speedos. Like I said before, there's a lot more potential for instrumental rationality in the decision to wear a niqab than in the decision to tattoo one's face. This might also be a good point to ask how anybody in favour of a ban on niqabs and burqas plans to keep the scope of the ban reasonable. Suppose you ban niqabs and burqas. What do you do when everybody who used to wear a niqab or a burqa starts wearing a new kind of garment that is neither of those things but has the same obscuring and anonymising effect? Ban all face coverings? Whoops, there goes my full-face bike helmet. Ban face coverings that are worn because of particular religious beliefs? Now you're not banning items of clothing, but banning particular thoughts while wearing certain items of clothing, something not only repugnant but totally incapable of being policed. It's just never going to work. The entire endeavour is doomed from the start. However noble the intentions, the project will fail to achieve the desired goal. quote:Someone who is suicidal needs help, they're never just being 'weird' and it's okay to recognize that. quote:It's okay to make judgements like that, super liberalism gets you nowhere. Cat Mattress posted:Cigarettes get "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" labels on their packaging, selling alcohol to people under 21 is prohibited in the USA (at 18 you can drive a car, shoot a gun, star in a porn movie, but you can't buy a drink), you need licenses for operating most types of motorized vehicles, and also to own some types of dogs. OK. I don't need anybody's permission to walk around inverted on my hands. That is a totally unregulated activity. Would you say walking distance X is more hazardous to my health when done in heels, or when done on my hands? If hands, are you in favour of banning handstands? If it depends how good I am at handwalking (terrible), cannot the same be said about heels? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not sure having "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" written on the burqa would help the situation. Point is tobacco would be banned already if there wasn't a big and powerful lobby behind them that is doing everything it can to prevent the more radical measures that would have been taken long ago otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
I think what we should do is level the field by banning all garments other than identical grey jumpsuits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
The point with self-harm/suicide is to get you to concede that consent is not the only metric that we judge the actions of others, that it's okay to move beyond that and deem some behaviors as something a normal person wouldn't do. Having got you to concede that, the argument turns from one of a kind into one of degree, upon which it's easier to reach consensus, since that's what you're all about. The comparisons to speech don't work because the key word is 'group identification', you personally identifying as *whatever* is irrelevant, but a group of people together identifying is a categorically different matter - you express membership in a visible, permanent way that's harder to hide, and you express solidarity with other members of your group. Practical constraints are also important - failing to achieve a goal makes bad policy, as does policy that's too costly for a good payoff, but the concerns you raise are up for debate - there are definitely places where there's no practical reason for face coverings, so most public places do in fact count (you only need to wear your bike helmet on your actual bike, for example). Smudgie Buggler posted:I'm definitely no libertarian, but I do think it gets you a lot of places worth being. But there's not much for you and me to actually have an argument over way down here, and I don't think getting quite this abstract is going to improve the quality of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Point is tobacco would be banned already if there wasn't a big and powerful lobby behind them that is doing everything it can to prevent the more radical measures that would have been taken long ago otherwise. So liberals nowadays support a ban on tobacco but legal protections for Islamic FGM burkas and spousal rape?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:OK. I don't need anybody's permission to walk around inverted on my hands. That is a totally unregulated activity. Would you say walking distance X is more hazardous to my health when done in heels, or when done on my hands? Anyway, feel free to revive this tangent to a tangent when it gets marginally relevant, like when women are barred from entering some fancy schmancy reception because they aren't walking on their hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Point is tobacco would be banned already if there wasn't a big and powerful lobby behind them that is doing everything it can to prevent the more radical measures that would have been taken long ago otherwise. I'm aware. I'm trying to inject some levity into the situation. Feigned levity of course, as stated earlier I am livid IRL 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
You'd be banned were it not for the levity lobby, so I can understand your actions.TomViolence posted:I think what we should do is level the field by banning all garments other than identical grey jumpsuits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You'd be banned were it not for the levity lobby, so I can understand your actions. Hijab fashion is very diverse and there's no reason to think that similar coverings wouldn't follow suit if it wasn't treated so seriously in contemporary society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hijab fashion is very diverse and there's no reason to think that similar coverings wouldn't follow suit if it wasn't treated so seriously in contemporary society. But they all look the same to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
The curious thing is that people feel that the way to
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Would you guys ban earrings because they mutilate your ear lobes? No? The shut the gently caress up about banning burqas and foot binding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Ban ears and feet. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The curious thing is that people feel that the way to This is a cute notion, and it's valuable as an illustration, but the actual suggestion is itself a de facto ban on wearing niqabs, and in no way guarantees the oppressors get punished. The oppressors will exert their control over women and make them stop wearing niqabs to keep themselves out of prison. The process is more poetic, but the effect is exactly the same in that nothing happens except women get their clothing choices restricted. edit: Thank you to whoever bought me this new avatar. A change was long overdue, and I don't entirely dislike it. Does anybody know what painting it's taken from? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The curious thing is that people feel that the way to Yes indeedy that is exactly what is happening. People like Fadela Amara, Samira Bellil, Nadia Benmissi, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Saira Khan are viewing Muslim women as the enemy of civilization. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:05
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yes indeedy that is exactly what is happening. People like Fadela Amara, Samira Bellil, Nadia Benmissi, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Saira Khan are viewing Muslim women as the enemy of civilization. Should I tell my friends who wear hijab that doing so is exactly like being a Jew in Nazi Germany, or will you apologize for that disgusting analogy? I mean, lord knows you're not going to respond to ideas, because you can't. You just rely on names, because your brain can't handle thinking. You are a waste of all that has been given to you, by your family and all the rest of the world.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
These are the names of the people who you accuse of being racist and fascist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:15
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:These are the names of the people who you accuse of being racist and fascist. Why don't you respond to ideas, instead of being a bald hypocrite? Can you justify why the people who, according to you, are victims, should be the ones punished? Or do you have no thoughts of your own beyond "I read some article" and thus ought to be considered legally dead?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
I guess the phasers work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
For whom is not being allowed to wear a burqa a punishment? And for whom is being forced to wear it a punishment? What you don't get is that the state banning the burqa frees the women from retribution. Without a ban, a veil-less woman is attacked for "shaming God" and can be killed. With a ban, it's not "her fault" anymore and violences against free-willed women decreases. You put the desires of fundamentalists above the desires of free-willed women, by thinking that those who want to wear it but aren't allowed are more important than those who don't want to wear it but are coerced to. And then you claim that your support of fundamentalists is the One True Way of being a progressive, because any sort of opposition to fundamentalism is fascism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:28
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:For whom is not being allowed to wear a burqa a punishment? And for whom is being forced to wear it a punishment? Oh ho ho. Now it comes out. Hey. Hey Cat Mattress. If you're willing to risk violence against civil disobedient victims, surely you're willing to do so against the victimizers, and can just push to have the police and army kill all fundamentalist men, or round them up into camps, or forbid them to have children and take the ones they do have away. But that's "fascism". You want a way to exterminate threats to liberalism while remaining liberal, but you still reject liberalism in your support of criminalizing clothing. I suggest resolving this tension, ideally in favor of liberalism. But this also presumes that ending the niqab is only possible with a ban, and not by any other means. Which still leaves you looking small-minded.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
This is what you call thinking? "You support a ban on clothing, so surely you support extermination camps!" Even brushing aside the stupidity of your hyperbole, it's a lot simpler to enforce a ban on burqa than a ban on telling women to put on burqas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:46
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:This is what you call thinking? "You support a ban on clothing, so surely you support extermination camps!" Reread what I said, Cat Mattress. Also, you accused a whole bunch of people of being Nazis earlier, so you have no room to pule and whine. Simplicity would demand an end to trials,which are much harder than simply killing the suspect. Simplicity is bullshit and that post is a sign that I'm running close to the limits of your domesticated intellect. Good.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:This is what you call thinking? "You support a ban on clothing, so surely you support extermination camps!" As Islamophobes are so fond of saying, that's how it starts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:As Islamophobes are so fond of saying, that's how it starts. However, enlightened people know that slippery slope arguments are fallacious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:02
|
|
