[NGTM-1R]

Even simply being a muslim is in conflict with being French, because France is traditionally a christian and secular country.

You are ignorant of your history, but that isn't particularly new where we've had to point out multiculturalism has been working in Eastern Europe since the Roman Empire to you. However the fact you literally cannot read is kind of new.

France has incorporated a Muslim minority since before World War I and has never needed to ban burkhas as unFrench before now. ... These people are a fundamental part of the French character and have been for more than a hundred years.

[Grizzly]

I do consider [the burka] to be a symbol of sexism.

I am now reminded of a radio discussion I once heard between an Iranian correspondent and a feminist in Holland who both had a very different view on the Burqini (not really comparable to the burqa, but still): In Iran, the thing was viewed with an overwhelming "meh" as the Iranians would rather get rid of the requirement of headcoverings alltogether. Meanwhile, in the western world the thing is considered a blessing for those who want to go swimming without having to sacrifice their clothing standards. It's an instance where two different groups had the same goals and beliefs (freedom for women, in this case freedom from men telling you what to wear) and yet viewed one piece of clothing very different because of the enviroment they lived in: European muslimas considering it an issue of sexism and religious freedom (As the burqini ban specifically affects one half of the muslim population) and Iranian muslimas considering it a relic of a patriarchical way of looking at the world that has no place in a modern society.

[666maslo666]

France has incorporated a Muslim minority since before World War I and has never needed to ban burkhas as unFrench before now. ... These people are a fundamental part of the French character and have been for more than a hundred years.

Not true, as I said, muslims were very rare in mainland France before WW2 (colonies dont count). While now they are approaching 10%. It is you who should go learn history, and stop writing revisionist nonsense. The situation is much different than in the past.

that isn't particularly new where we've had to point out multiculturalism has been working in Eastern Europe since the Roman Empire to you

I dont know what you are talking about here. Multiculturalism in Eastern Europe both worked and didnt work, depending on what cultures we are talking about and the timeframe. But I do admit we arguably have more historical experience with multiculturalism going back centuries than Western Europe (Gypsies, Turks..). This historical experience may be why our views on the matter are more rational and rooted in reality than our Western friends, if I may say so myself.. 

[666maslo666]

What the actual ****. Are we seriously going to compare an extreme form of prudeness to the swastika, which symbolizes racial purity and an ideology which actively encourages ethnic cleansing?

Racial purity, sexual purity, it is the same thing.

Lots of "whores" are lynched in the name of sexual purity in the more backwards parts of middle east and north Africa, and the treatment of homosexuals, adulterers and so on in similar to how nazis treated Jews.

So you bet that we are going to compare them.

And post WW2, extreme sexual prudishness and ultraconservatism of islamists is a bigger issue than nazism. It is certainly a more relevant threat for modern world of 21st century. Dont you think you are a bit stuck in the past here?

[Det. Bullock]

Banning the burkini is stupid, next what will you do? Forbid nuns to have a stroll on the beach because they wear headscarves? Outright forbid to go to the beach in anything but a bikini?
There a reason the french constitutional court forbid these bans, it's just another example of xenofobic stupidity.

Banning the induments that cover the face is normal in many countries (even muslim ones)*, but banning headscarves because they are "muslim"? That's pure stupidity.

*in Italy church fraternities used to go to cerimonies with their face covered (think of the hoods klansmen used in the US), the practice was banned because many members of these fraternities were members of organized crime which led to a few ugly incidents during gang wars, the reason for banning going with the face covered is more or less the same everywhere.

[Dragon]

I should add that covering your hair (what Muslims are required to do) is pretty standard practice if one intends to do a lot of swimming. Mostly seen in the pools, but if you don't fancy having salt in your hair this is a pretty good idea on the beach, as well. And that's without even mentioning full-body wetsuits that one wears for recreational diving... Indeed, I can see something like burquini being a good choice for water sports in general. Or when you just don't fancy (or can't get due to genetics) a tan, but still want to go to the beach for any reason.

Banning face coverings is sensible. Banning things like burquini is pure xenophobia and a bone-headed move to boot. Beaches aren't there for men to ogle women in skimpy swimsuits. Legislators should consider working for womens' freedom - by enacting laws allowing them to wear whatever the hell they want. I have a feeling that among all those politics, the definition of "freedom" is often forgotten.

And post WW2, extreme sexual prudishness and ultraconservatism of islamists is a bigger issue than nazism. It is certainly a more relevant threat for modern world of 21st century. Dont you think you are a bit stuck in the past here?

No, he's looking into the future. If you think nazism isn't getting closer and closer to making a comeback (probably under a different name, though), then look at the current situation in Europe. Yes, Islamists are a problem in the Middle East, but if we keep going on like that, European countries are going to be sending another ethnicity originating from Middle East to the camps.

[666maslo666]

No, he's looking into the future. If you think nazism isn't getting closer and closer to making a comeback (probably under a different name, though), then look at the current situation in Europe. Yes, Islamists are a problem in the Middle East, but if we keep going on like that, European countries are going to be sending another ethnicity originating from Middle East to the camps.

Current situation in Europe is such that nazism is politically deader than dead and even a mere proposal of having a tight immigration policy is enough to get branded so-called "far right" in most of the continent, including France. So there will be no ethnicity being sent to any camps anytime soon, that is science-fiction tier scenario, nothing more than fear-mongering. Looking into the future, the only credible threat to Europe is islamism, which is actually on the rise in Europe, favored by demographics and very strong globally (but even that threat to Europe is very much debatable, I admit).

[NGTM-1R]

Not true, as I said, muslims were very rare in mainland France before WW2 (colonies dont count).

You see, this is the problem.

The colonies do count. They're French owned, French administrated, and represent an enlightening methodology of driving a Muslim population to extreme acts by thoughtlessly assuming all Frenchmen are the same. France failed to keep Algeria because they pushed policies that had their roots in an idealized metropolitan France rather than reality. Algerian independence was not a sure thing until after WW2 when they screwed up. It was traditional for a very long time to treat them in a live-and-let-live manner.

(And the idea that something can't be traditional because it's from post WW2 when World War 2 is rapidly closing on four generations into the past is laughable in itself. Let's see you justify that one.)

France is now screwing up with their Muslim minority in an identical fashion. Tell me, what do you suppose they think to accomplish repeating failed ideas? Why are you encouraged to seem them pursue a path that we know ends in not only a failure to assimilate, but violence? Is your commitment to the idea that them ragheads are a threat so great that you will deliberately create a threat where none exists?

[Bobboau]

**** off

**** off.

You're full of ****.

I remember getting a warning for telling someone they were completely full of ****.

I think it was for saying something like Islam wasn't rexponcable for 9/11 or something, but that's not important...

it's good to see we have stopped enforcing that silly rule and I can just tell everyone I disagree with to go eat **** and go kill themselves. That really was a silly phase of this board and I for one am glad to see it gone.

[Scotty]

Hey Bob why don't you go quote the part of that post where I invited a mod to warn me for that, and further remember that you are a mod.

Otherwise you are whining for the express purpose of whining, since you have the means, reason, and opportunity to fix the problem you just mentioned.

[Bobboau]

I am not a moderator.
Unless someone promoted me without my knowledge.

I know I turned the role down once because I'm a free speech guy and I figured I would never judge anything said worthy of censure. but I do take particular issue with rules being unequally enforced.
but I don't see anything that I assume to be moderator tools in the HLP UI

but I was just trying to remember something specific to you, and since you have singled yourself out I guess I should just ask outright, weren't you the "spirit of the rule rather than the letter of the rule" guy? was just trying to remember if that was you or someone else.

[karajorma]

Actually if Scotty hadn't replied in exactly the way he did, I would have petitioned for Maslo to go into political prisoners for that comment. So if anything, Scotty prevented a stronger punishment happening with his salty language.

[Bobboau]

oh, so if I infuriate someone else into a hysterical fit of expletives as a result, I can be more inflammatory... interesting...

[Scotty]

I am not a moderator.
Unless someone promoted me without my knowledge.

I know I turned the role down once because I'm a free speech guy and I figured I would never judge anything said worthy of censure. but I do take particular issue with rules being unequally enforced.
but I don't see anything that I assume to be moderator tools in the HLP UI

but I was just trying to remember something specific to you, and since you have singled yourself out I guess I should just ask outright, weren't you the "spirit of the rule rather than the letter of the rule" guy? was just trying to remember if that was you or someone else.

Your custom title still says MOD in it like three times, whoops.

That said, since I am physically unable to warn myself (I have tried), someone else please do it because as much as you want to try to claim it, the rules aren't being applied unevenly.  If there was absolutely no action taken, you'd have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, please take your cawing about hypocrisy (since that's pretty obviously what the whole point of bringing up the 'spirit of the rules' is) somewhere else.

[Bobboau]

There are two other people I listed, I see no mention of if this was acceptable behavior or not and if any disciplinary actions were put in place. Not that it is compulsory to do so, but it is frequently customary. Now as you mention, despite the fact that you knowingly explicitly as a moderator acted in a way as to warent disciplinary action, you have not (as of my starting to write this) been disciplined. It seems to me that "there was absolutely no action taken". You are not the only mod, so the fact you are technically unable to discipline youreself is irrelevant, the fact you pointed your self out a few times only compounds the matter. And I'm sorry but I have to ask again, if you knew what you had said was against the rules, why wouldn't you simply delete the message, or edit it so as to strike the comment out and say you are leaving the thread? Apparently it is now HLP policy that telling people to "**** off" is just ****ing dandy, as it happened three times in one page and I didn't see an punitive measures even though people of a different political alignment have experienced such in quite recent history.

It was NGTM-1R's "you're full of ****" that got to me, because it was the exact thing I had done (I think directed at him) that got some disciplinary action (which I accepted) except I followed it up with why I thought that.

But it's good to see the "spirit" in action.

[Scotty]

Because sometimes the punishment is worth it for the message.  That said: since you're not a mod, whether you can see punishment handed out is ultimately irrelevant.

the alternate interpretation here is that maslo deserved it for posting from such a reprehensible position.  This isn't 'HLP liberal group dogpiles on conservative position', it's 'piece of **** opinion gets lambasted for being a piece of **** opinion'.

I mean, unless you're seriously defending muslims = nazis as a position of any merit whatsoever.

[Bobboau]

I honestly didn't even read the context as I didn't consider it relevant.

But now that I re-read his post that you were responding to, "Muslims = Nazi" wasn't actually what he was saying, was it?


You know when I posted that, I was honestly expecting Kara to just respond with a simple "No Bob, those were just as unacceptable. I didn't feel it was anybodies business at the time but if you must know warnings have been given to many individuals in this thread". I certainly wasn't expecting... well this.

[Scotty]

I quoted the parts of it that generated the response I gave.  By now it's pretty obvious you don't actually care about the content of the post that was objectionable, and (probably literally) nothing I say is going to change your stance on the issue.  Even if there is an issue (there patently is; but apparently the fact that such is known and should be handled is irrelevant as long as you aren't satisfied by the action taken), I no longer particularly care what you think about it.

Have a nice day.

You know when I posted that, I was honestly expecting Kara to just respond with a simple "No Bob, those were just as unacceptable. I didn't feel it was anybodies business at the time but if you must know warnings have been given to many individuals in this thread". I certainly wasn't expecting... well this.

See above, re: calling a piece of **** opinion a piece of ****.  EDIT: seriously this isn't a political disagreement that was some vile bull**** and it got a response in kind; I'd warn people myself but I'm just a little bit involved.

[Bobboau]

yeah, actually you were sort of a footnote, you were first only chronologically. My thought process when I posted that was. "hey... isn't that the exact thing that got me in trouble the other day... you know now that I think about it, haven't there been a lot of posts like that?. heh, yeah, there have"

the part you quoted was
"Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really"
I read the rest of his post to see if there was anything more to it, and yeah, I certainly would not agree with everything he said, especially the first part of his post. but who mandates the waring of the burka? Talaban, ISIS (except in security zones apparently), Wahabis/Salafists, generally the most extreme totalitarian conservative Islamist sects/movements/organizations, you know, the ones that are kinda Nazi-like.

but if you would like to leave this discussion for the administration's secret club, I'm fine with that, I voiced my concern.

[666maslo666]

The colonies do count. They're French owned, French administrated

I certainly dont agree with that. Colonies dont count, you do not become a multicultural country when you conquer some foreign land. You only become an empire. Multicultural nation means cultures live side by side in one area. There was just no muslim-related multiculturalism in France before WW2, and thats a historical fact.

(And the idea that something can't be traditional because it's from post WW2 when World War 2 is rapidly closing on four generations into the past is laughable in itself. Let's see you justify that one.)

Thats easy. In a country with a history going back thousands of years, something existing in just for a few decades, and especially rising significantly only after the turn of the millenium, is not traditional. It is a new development and long-term consequences are yet to be seen.

France is now screwing up with their Muslim minority in an identical fashion. Tell me, what do you suppose they think to accomplish repeating failed ideas? Why are you encouraged to seem them pursue a path that we know ends in not only a failure to assimilate, but violence? Is your commitment to the idea that them ragheads are a threat so great that you will deliberately create a threat where none exists?

France is not screwing their muslim community at all. France is among one of the most tolerant, pro-immigrant, developed and welfarey place that ever existed in space-time. Relatively speaking, it is an immigrant paradise. If there is anyone screwing up, it is French muslim minority screwing themselves up, and France with them. Like they did their source countries. Coincidence? I think not..

And for the record, I dont agree with any bans on burka or burkini, but it is just not an important factor for integration either way.

Actually if Scotty hadn't replied in exactly the way he did, I would have petitioned for Maslo to go into political prisoners for that comment.

If I break some rules then by all means ban me, but silencing voices just because you disagree with their opinions is wrong, Kara. HLP should be better than that. I dont see anything ban worthy in my posts. I am not the one insulting people here.

I mean, unless you're seriously defending muslims = nazis as a position of any merit whatsoever.

I did not say muslims = nazis. I said that ultraconservative, extremist, burka-wearing* muslims = nazis. There are certainly a lot of parallels between both of these totalitarian, extremists ideologies.

I even explicitly stated that liberal muslims may be OK.

This is not any kind of abnormal view, ask random Europeans and I bet half would agree with me on the spot.

So please stop misinterpreting my position into some kind of an arch-islamophobe strawman.

* just to clarify, if they are forced to wear burka, which is common, then obviously they arent nazis, their oppressor is