|
MaxxBot posted:If you put more energy into criticizing gay rights groups in Islamic countries for their western imperialism than you do towards criticism of the governments that literally want to murder them then you're a homophobe, sorry. This shithead can sit back and make arguments about imperialism while these people are killed, that is sick. Ok, go write to your congressman to complain to Obama about how he sold $110 billion dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia during his tenure. HAHAHA, of course. a rabid Zionist website. you're one of those loons who shat themselves with anger when he got full tenure at Columbia right? I'm not even going to respond to this toilet paper, because if you're going to use a website that openly advocates for apartheid and openly tries to claim that there's no such thing as a Palestinian people, then you really have no business pretending like you give a poo poo about human rights in the first place.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Ok here's the wikipedia page, this is a well known event in LGBT history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_52 You're OK with defending this? I'm about as comfortable with US government policy towards Saudi Arabia as you are, it's pretty funny that you think that just because I live in the US I love our foreign policy. Our attitudes towards Saudi Arabia is one of my top complaints about US foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Joseph Massad claims that countries like Egypt target gays purely because of their gay identity rather than simply because they're men seeking to have sex with other men. If this is true then why do those governments use Grindr and other sex apps to entrap and arrest men seeking sex with other men? How do they know whether or not those men identify as gay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There's really no meaningful distinction because almost everyone who has a sexual orientation eventually acts on that orientation, it's one of the most powerful biological desires out there. This is not really historically or culturally accurate
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Ok here's the wikipedia page, this is a well known event in LGBT history. Why yes I agree, an evil military fascist government armed to the teeth by the west and their clients to remain in power is indeed evil and fascist. Glad we could agree on that. Would've saved thousands of lives by now if the Egyptian people could get past their tanks and guns. Listen, we've really gone off track here so I'm not going to continue with this line of talk beyond this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Can you at least respond to this post?MaxxBot posted:Joseph Massad claims that countries like Egypt target gays purely because of their gay identity rather than simply because they're men seeking to have sex with other men. If this is true then why do those governments use Grindr and other sex apps to entrap and arrest men seeking sex with other men? How do they know whether or not those men identify as gay? That actually is a point Massad makes and Hussein Ibish makes the same criticism about it that I do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This is not really historically or culturally accurate I assumed we were talking about currently rather than historically as sexual identity has changed throughout history but either way, I don't see execution as any more justifiable in either situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This is not really historically or culturally accurate Are you saying there are homosexuals who want to be closeted and alone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That actually is a point Massad makes and Hussein Ibish makes the same criticism about it that I do. Speaking of people concerned for the plight of Arab homosexuals:-   
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Care to actually respond to arguments that I'm making rather than criticize sources? Massad's argument that men who have sex with men in middle eastern countries are persecuted only if they assert gay identity rather than simply for having sex with other men is simply factually incorrect. There are documented cases of these governments using apps such as Grindr to target and arrest men simply for having sex with other men, he is wrong. http://observers.france24.com/en/20140916-egyptian-police-dating-sites-gay MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
No I'm done. take it to the LGBT thread if you want to continue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Care to actually respond to arguments that I'm making rather than criticize sources? Massad's argument that men who have sex with men in middle eastern countries are persecuted only if they assert gay identity rather than simply for having sex with other men is simply factually incorrect. There are documented cases of these governments using apps such as Grindr to target and arrest men simply for having sex with other men, he is wrong. How would they find people with gay identity without apps like Grindr? edit: hey wait a minute quote:Homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt. Despite this, numerous people have been arrested while taking part in festivities celebrating gay unions and accused of “debauchery.” In May, for example, four men were arrested during a party organised in Nasr City, located east of Cairo. One of them was sentenced to 12 years of prison, the heaviest sentence ever given to an LGBT person in Egypt. Doesn't this demonstrate them using accusations of homosexual behavior in order to convict someone based only on the knowledge that they are of gay identity? Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are you saying there are homosexuals who want to be closeted and alone? no, but homosexuality as an exclusive and total identity is very contemporary and if we are discussing cultural reactions to homosexuality this is not an unreasonable detail
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:no, but homosexuality as an exclusive and total identity is very contemporary and if we are discussing cultural reactions to homosexuality this is not an unreasonable detail What? I don't know anybody who's identity is literally "homosexuality" and nothing else. What does that even mean?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
My point is that countries that punish homosexuality do not exclusively focus on punishing gay identity while ignoring gay behavior, there are plenty of examples of them targeting private parties, bathhouses, social media, dating apps, etc. The notion that men who have sex with men will be left alone as long as they don't assume a political identity is simply incorrect. You could also look at US history in the 1950s to see a lot of examples of this point as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What? I don't know anybody who's identity is literally "homosexuality" and nothing else. What does that even mean? What I mean is that the exclusive sexual preference of those in your own gender as an identity is contemporary
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:What I mean is that the exclusive sexual preference of those in your own gender as an identity is contemporary Is it, or is it just that it's only recently become possible for homosexuals to be open about it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is it, or is it just that it's only recently become possible for homosexuals to be open about it? Maybe. Honestly I am not sure we have the perspective yet to decide. Personally, I think homosexuality has always been a legitimate sexual preference that has been obfuscated by mores about sexual behavior. However, I also do not think we have had the sociological distance yet to objectively make that distinction. Therefore, I cannot meaningfully condemn someone who disagrees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Having a label for the state of being gay, being same-sex oriented, as opposed to just the behavior, is the recent part It identifies homosexuality as an intrinsic quality to a person, like density, rather than an extrinsic quality, like velocity
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
The ban on Burkinis(who the hell came up with that) flies straight in the face of secularism, this isnt about representing public institutions or covering faces in public. There are no loving reason why this is anything other then a "gently caress you" to a certain demographic, the US constitution actually put this pretty decently...." no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" this principle is implemented on most European and American constitutions...hell the ones with a monarch and state churches have does much better upholding that principle then US of A itself. If you want to argue US =! Europe, I'll happily bring on the 100 years war. Secularism in whatever form are there to insure the plurality of laws and governing, its suppose to keep amature theologians of the loving docket no matter how popular they are. For me that includes any demographic identity, as Yugoslavia taught us that a war between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims can involve absolute zilch in theology and whichever way the loving wind blows. (I do not mean to fire up any Balkanization bollocks My Dad, I've read extensively on the subject of the Balkans and its a reason i first and foremost identify myself as a fierce anti-nationalist, in my mind Serbians was a victim of Serbian-Nationalism)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
The people who set my great-aunt's house on fire in 1995, imprisoned her, and mocked her for fighting the Nazis in WW2 weren't Serbian nationalists, but whatevs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:What I mean is that the exclusive sexual preference of those in your own gender as an identity is contemporary Well if the Egyptian security services are wiring up car batteries to the scrotums of men arrested for expressing a gay identity rather than for engaging in homosexual behavior than I guess that's different then. Reminder: "It is the very discourse of the Gay International which produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist" - Joseph Massad
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Having a label for the state of being gay, being same-sex oriented, as opposed to just the behavior, is the recent part There are earlier examples of people being identified or having an identity based on same-sex behavior but the modern understanding of the homosexuality and heterosexuality binary is something that originated in the late 19th century. Mel Mudkiper posted:Maybe. Honestly I am not sure we have the perspective yet to decide. Personally, I think homosexuality has always been a legitimate sexual preference that has been obfuscated by mores about sexual behavior. However, I also do not think we have had the sociological distance yet to objectively make that distinction. Therefore, I cannot meaningfully condemn someone who disagrees. Yeah but the problem is that societies and countries that "disagree" don't just disagree as a philosophical argument, they persecute people both for the identity and the behavior indiscriminately. You'd be hard-pressed to find any good counterexamples. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
It really depends on context. Atatürk did nothing wrong. Especially when he banned headscarves for those in governmental positions. Just like how after the French Revolution, crushing Catholic symbolism was important in France. I'd go so far as to argue banning headscarves at universities in Turkey was the right decision because, despite their origins, modern universities have a duty in moral education and that moral education includes secularism. People are free to reject it later, but it is a necessary component. In places like Europe and America bans are less necessary and more a function of racism. While I do firmly believe that governments have a Rousseauian obligation towards the moral cultivation of their subjects, within immigrant populations social (rather than governmental) pressures are generally sufficient within a couple of generations. Despite their Gastarbeiter status, in cosmopolitan German environments multigenerational Turkish-Germans are "hyphenated Germans". While there are certainly more apt and evocative examples in the US, I'm going to go with Italian-Americans. "Guido" culture still experiences some discrimination and may never full integrate with "American" culture, but after more than 100 years, there are very few Americans willing to call Italians an alien "other" unworthy of the title "American". In fact, if you ask your average ultra-white super-racist-but-in-a-totally-not-overt-way American what their favorite food is, they will respond with "Italian". And they mean Italian-American, these people ain't eating a caprese salad unless there's croutons in it at the Spaghetti Factory. In Europe, it is unfortunate that the next few generations of immigrants will likely have to deal with the twin forces of "Old Country Culture" and "New Country Culture" when the "New Country" will both demands that they conform to their cultural standard while also actively rejecting them as "foreign" at every turn. It's too bad Europe has such strict gun laws, since a "Green Panthers Movement for Self Defense" would be a useful thing and very instructive for society at large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's too bad Europe has such strict gun laws, since a "Green Panthers Movement for Self Defense" would be a useful thing and very instructive for society at large. What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
ok the Hijab and Dupatta can stay, the Burka and Niqab must be outlawed, it's cruel making someone wear that The Chador absolutely has to go because it's just so drat ugly [IMG] 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
I'm with Mel Mudkipper, this is the wrong way to go about things. I don't think this will get the result the lawmakers are hoping for (ie ~~~women freed from their fetters~~~) and instead people will simply feel like it's an assault on their culture. Which it is. If this was like a per-basis ban (like no face covers in banks, government buildings, etc...) I guess that would be okay, but a blanket ban like this is not the way to go. Okay this is an absolutely dipshit question asked by absolutely dipshit people but I have been surprised before. Is there any truth to Islamization? I know it's probably bullshit but anyone got some legit literature to fend off dumb people who bring it up? It's related to the thread cause "first women wore burqas, then we stopped eating pork and now we must sacrifice ourselves for the moon god" and so on
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What the hell? The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was an activist group for Black Rights in America that used the Second Amendment to reactively defend civil rights in the face of an overtly racist system. It has inspired spin off groups such as the "pink" and "grey" panthers. Green is a color traditionally associated with Islam. Plus, Muslims love cats 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
I completely view the Burka as a tool of oppression, one component of a whole suite that is designed to oppressed and marginalise women in Islamic culture (not being able to drive or to meet with men unaccompanied and so on and so forth as exists in some countries). Facial cues are an important part of human communication which is completely denied to this subset of the population. They are oppressed. Whether they buy into this oppression willingly or do so under coercion doesn't change the fact that wearing a burka is marginalising. Once we accept that women who wear burkas are oppressed, as I do, but we may well need to have a discussion that this is so, then Western Democratic governments have a responsibility to protect those minorities who are oppressed. It is a central ideal of our democracies, to protect the oppressed and marginalised. Wearing a burka is not a choice if it is the only possible option. A ban might not be the best way to go forward, but the status quo cannot be accepted. Perhaps a reasonable comparison is foot binding in China. It was hosed up but it was so culturally ingrained that the people wanted to continue this tradition (including women) and resisted change. In the future I think the Burka will be viewed in a similar light.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Perhaps a reasonable comparison is foot binding in China. It was hosed up but it was so culturally ingrained that the people wanted to continue this tradition (including women) and resisted change. In the future I think the Burka will be viewed in a similar light. Please explain how burqas are comparable to permanent physical disfigurement
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Please explain how burqas are comparable to permanent physical disfigurement Physical disfigurement is the only part that isnt comparable, obviously. I was hoping you would identify both practices were deeply culturally ingrained, caused harm to women, are defended by those who practice it and women are often willing participants. Not all harm is physical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was an activist group for Black Rights in America that used the Second Amendment to reactively defend civil rights in the face of an overtly racist system. It has inspired spin off groups such as the "pink" and "grey" panthers. Green is a color traditionally associated with Islam. Plus, Muslims love cats I know who the black panthers are and I don't think that creating an armed paramilitary organisation in a previously mostly unarmed society is a good way to approach this issue. But then maybe I only say that cos I'm Irish. Still, maybe that's beside the point anyway, one could argue that recent events involved militant organisations 'instructing' society at large on how some people don't like blasphemous cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was an activist group for Black Rights in America that used the Second Amendment to reactively defend civil rights in the face of an overtly racist system. It has inspired spin off groups such as the "pink" and "grey" panthers. Green is a color traditionally associated with Islam. Plus, Muslims love cats I thought they were called Hamas
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Ravens Ruse posted:ok the Hijab and Dupatta can stay, Perhaps a better way of going about it would be banning people being forced to wear them, as opposed to banning people from choosing to wear them? Believe it or not, some people do choose to wear them on their own volition. BattleMoose posted:Physical disfigurement is the only part that isnt comparable, obviously. It's also a pretty key part of your argument. You compared it to something that is A, much worse, and B, permanent, and then admitted that oh wait, that wasn't a good comparison after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
The government should hire a "fashion board" comprised of some of the top experts in the fashion industry, who will help enforce a ban on all bad fashion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I think you're being unfair. This is not a binary between relativism and liberalism. There is a very real issue in the fact that homosexuality as a construct of identity is very much a western invention. "Homosexual" is a cultural idea that is less than a century old. Inevitably, there are going to be issues of cultural appropriation and influence when specifically cultural concepts interact with cultures that do not share these concepts. Nothing seems to be suggest that Massad agrees with or endorses the persecution of homosexuals. He just seems to feel the delineation of homosexual identity is an alien concept. Why is people outside of Europe acting like flamboyant gays an act of cultural appropriation (which is a terrible concept and you should be ashamed for seriously referring to it)? Mel Mudkiper posted:Unfortunately, there is no external way to solve this problem. Fortunately, Muslim women are gaining the self-empowerment necessary to fight against treatment they consider unfair. The issue is that we, as westerners, have no place in inserting ourselves in a specifically Muslim cultural conflict. We do more harm to the modernization of conservative Islam by interfering than we do by simply sheparding our own values. You're implying that Islam is fundamentally non-western, and that muslims can not be part of western society. Ok then, this is the same argument that neo-cuckservatives make when they talk about The West surrendering to the muslamic invasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Majorian posted:It's also a pretty key part of your argument. You compared it to something that is A, much worse, and B, permanent, and then admitted that oh wait, that wasn't a good comparison after all. Its not a key part of my argument. The key part of my argument is that they both cause harm. They both do cause harm. And whose to say that the consequences of wearing a burka does not cause a permanent scar on ones mental health? I did not admit it wasn't a good comparison. I think its a fair comparison. Which is why I made the comparison. Foot binding I would agree is worse than being forced to wear a burka. But suggesting that burkas are okay because foot bindings are worse, isn't exactly an argument to be making. They are both bad, they are both unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Its not a key part of my argument. The key part of my argument is that they both cause harm. They both do cause harm. And whose to say that the consequences of wearing a burka does not cause a permanent scar on ones mental health? Okay then how are they at all comparable? You're talking in circles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Perhaps a better way of going about it would be banning people being forced to wear them, as opposed to banning people from choosing to wear them? Believe it or not, some people do choose to wear them on their own volition. Establish a department of police and social workers that can be called by anyone who is being forced to wear the burka. They will go in, liberate the oppressed and punish the dominators. This removes any need for a blanket ban. It can have detectives too, who seek out oppressive households. If there is suspicion that someone is being oppressed, they can be put on a watch list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Ravens Ruse posted:ok the Hijab and Dupatta can stay, Maybe women should be allowed to wear what they want
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:50
|
|
