Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mikes on September 07, 2016, 10:55:23 am
-
Who you might ask did such a thing? Germany? Nah fat chance. US? UK?
Nope, so who did it?
Well ISIS of course: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1731049/terror-fanatics-demand-women-stop-covering-themselves-up-in-iraq-claiming-face-veils-present-a-major-security-risk/
......
-
:lol:
Always good to see Daesh squirming. :nod:
-
The Ottomans banned it back in the day, too. Made it too easy for criminals to hide their identities.
-
That's not a new idea. Both the Burka (an Afghani full body garment with a face veil) and the Niquab (a regular face-concealing veil) were often subject to regulations on these grounds. It was all too often exploited for concealment by criminals and spies (of both genders, funnily enough). Women covering their faces isn't actually mandated be the most common standards of modesty in the Arab world (indeed, some scholars consider the custom as un-islamic, though obviously Wahabis don't subscribe to that interpretation).
That said, it's hilarious that a Wahabi movement, usually so hell-bent on adhering to their interpretation of Qu'ran to the letter, has gone against its own doctrine for the sake of their own security. I hope that more of this religious nuttery will soon come back to bite them.
-
and yet when France does it for the exact same reason all hell breaks loose.
-
It's just that France has a thing known as "free press". With, ISIS, on the other hand, all good Islamic citizens agree with every decision of their wise and holy leadership. :)
I kind of hope hell will break loose, TBH. This display of hypocrisy will certainly turn some people off ISIS and may sow discontent in their ranks as well. It'll probably be swiftly quashed (ISIS being what it is), but this certainly won't help their cause. Of course, that's assuming a regular thug of their ever finds out their leadership did something like that. Those far enough from the security zones don't need to know that and I don't think the leadership will be big on telling them. Especially that this means a few top leaders of ISIS were killed either by women or by crossdressers, which can't be good for their image, either. :)
-
and yet when France does it for the exact same reason all hell breaks loose.
It has been banned in France after a fight happened between several muslims and non-muslims, because a tourist was taking photos of muslim women with burkas on the beach. The muslim men did not like it, one of the side started fighting, and there you go, more than 10 people punching each others.
This has raised the issue of multi-culturalism once again on the table - and the issue of the discussion was the ban of the burka on french public beaches. The official reason is to avoid fights between the communities.
In ISIS, if i understand correctly, it is banned because some women wearing burkas have been caught killing some of their men. This is clearly not the same reason at all as the French one. I have no idea how you can assimilate the two
-
and yet when France does it for the exact same reason all hell breaks loose.
Because France has turned out not to have a pressing Burka Security Problem for it, rather it ties into weird French cultural issues like their anti-clerical/anti-religion attitude and inability to grasp that anyone would ever call themselves French and not act exactly like a white person from Paris in 1935.
-
ISIS does not even pretend to value such blasphemous concepts as "freedom". Not so with France, which is supposed to be a free country, at least in theory. So France banning the burka is indeed hypocritical, IMHO. What happened to liberty?
and inability to grasp that anyone would ever call themselves French and not act exactly like a white person from Paris in 1935.
If you don the burka, you are "French" maybe on paper, but not in reality. Being French should be about more than just a stamp in a passport, it is a culture, too. You dont need to eat them frogs, but you indeed have to share basic values with a white person from Paris in 1935. Wearing the trash bag casts serious doubt on whether you do.
-
You dont need to eat them frogs,
Having drawn an arbitrary line, you must realize that it is drivel? Because it is arbitrary, you can no more justify it in one position then you can argue against burkha-wearing being essentially French. France has incorporated a Muslim minority since before World War I and has never needed to ban burkhas as unFrench before now. Indeed, France ruled large portions of North Africa and some of the greatest French patriots of the World Wars were born in French Algeria and gave their lives in defense of or to liberate Metropolitan France. (For which they were promptly ignored, or in the case of WW2, stabbed in the back by De Gaulle bringing in white people to replace them for the parade through Paris.) These people are a fundamental part of the French character and have been for more than a hundred years.
Being a citizen of a country does not even require obeying its laws, otherwise we would strip citizenship with criminal convictions, much less sharing its culture. Ideally, it should involve doing so, and paying taxes, and perhaps even being willing to defend it. By any reasonable analysis, most of France's Muslim citizens have met that burden.
-
Even simply being a muslim is in conflict with being French, because France is traditionally a christian and secular country. Muslims were extremely rare in continental France before WW2. So it is an obstacle to integration. But it can work as long as we are talking only about some modern, liberal interpretation of islam. Which usually does not involve wearing a burka, tough. Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really, and if it is becoming more common then you need to seriously rethink French immigration and naturalization policies to put a stop to it. That said, I dont support any bans on burkas, because for one thing it is an undue violation of the liberty of French citizens, and for another I think it merely hides the problem, not solves it.
-
Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really
Don't take this the wrong way, but ... what in the grand **** makes you think these two things are in any way related ? Seriously, one is a symbol that was appropriated by one of the worst regime the world has known in recent history, who engaged in large scale attrocities, the other is a piece of clothing with ties to religion and culture.
Also,
France has incorporated a Muslim minority since before World War I and has never needed to ban burkhas as unFrench before now. Indeed, France ruled large portions of North Africa and some of the greatest French patriots of the World Wars were born in French Algeria and gave their lives in defense of or to liberate Metropolitan France. (For which they were promptly ignored, or in the case of WW2, stabbed in the back by De Gaulle bringing in white people to replace them for the parade through Paris.) These people are a fundamental part of the French character and have been for more than a hundred years.
Good post.
-
Even simply being a muslim is in conflict with being French, because France is traditionally a christian and secular country.
This is the first sentence that made me say '**** off' aloud in an empty room.
Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really
This was the second.
I'll happily accept a warning for this post if another mod wants to give me one, but somebody really needs to tell you in no uncertain turns to **** right the hell off.
-
Don't take this the wrong way, but ... what in the grand **** makes you think these two things are in any way related ? Seriously, one is a symbol that was appropriated by one of the worst regime the world has known in recent history, who engaged in large scale attrocities, the other is a piece of clothing with ties to religion and culture.
Burka is a symbol of islamic extremism and ultra-conservative interpretations of islam, which is an ideology / regimes responsible for oppressing millions of people around the world and certainly more dangerous and prominent than nazism in recent history (post WW2). Burka and swastika are thus very much comparable as symbols of hatred, bigotry and totalitarianism.
Now I dont think either of those symbols should be banned, but they certainly both should be condemned.
-
it's also an extreme conservative right wing ideology.
-
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?
...
**** off.
-
it's also an extreme conservative right wing ideology.
Or isn't.
Nazism really doesn't have room for a softer version. Islam can. You're full of ****.
-
The burka and the swastika are in completely different categories. But I do consider the former to be a symbol of sexism.
-
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?
...
**** off.
Well the comparison between Nazis obsession with "Übermenschen" / "Untermenschen" and the Islamists obsession with "Believers" / "Unbelievers" has been made before and rightfully so.
Both ideologies deem their members superior and demand the extermination of non members as the "final" goal.
At a lecture I heard it summed up pretty well as they called the extreme form of "Islamism" a kind of fanatic religion with fascist features.
Also, it was argued that Islamism is actually quite a bit worse than Nazi fascism, as Nazi fascism at least had it's roots in reality and hence the whole "racial stuff" could later easily be disproven by science. No such luck with Islamism where their ideology is backed up by an unfathomable god and the promise of paradise after death.
So yeah, you could actually argue that Islamists are a lot like Nazis (holding themselves superior above all and sneering at anyone else), except worse.
But nope, as far as symbolism goes I don't think you can compare the Burka with the Swastika. ISIS flag possibly would fit the bill however: That's pretty much their "brand" now, isn't it?
-
This whole discussion is quite silly. ISIS laws and tabloid reporters aside, burkas specifically are an Asian garment, mostly seen around Afghanistan, more conservative areas of Pakistan and India. It was (and still is) enforced by Taliban. Outside of areas they control, it's seen as a traditional garment mostly worn by old ladies. Western media calling every face-concealing muslim garment a burka makes about as much sense as calling every Western style of formal clothing a suit.
TBH, I suspect niquabs, not burkas were what ISIS actually targeted with the ban. A traditional Saudi niquab+abaya getup (which is presumably what ISIS makes the women wear) looks similar to a Burqua from the distance, but is very distinct. For one, a niquab is a face veil (separate from abaya, which covers the rest of the body), while burka is a full garment. The women who "took off their burkas celebrating liberation from ISIS" either actually wore niquabs, or were so liberated that they decided to go all the way and strip to their undies. :) Niquab has been assigned various meanings, but it's not exclusively a symbol of sexism and has stood for many things in the past.
As for islamism and nazism, I'd say they're very similar. Basically, ISIS has fascism with radical islam, while nazis had fascism with white supremacism. Same idea, but with a different ideology. They have the same source, too. A lot of angry idiots, a couple of power-hungry dolts and no strong government capable of either sticking said dolts in prison or lining them up against the wall and shooting them. Say what you will against dictators, but if anyone tried to establish something like that during Saddam's times, the secret police would be all over him in no time.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.. :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
**** 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
oh, so if I infuriate someone else into a hysterical fit of expletives as a result, I can be more inflammatory... interesting...
-
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. :P
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
France might be pro-immigrant, but at the same time it can be very anti-Muslim. Their laws discriminate against them. The problem is less in overall conditions, but in relative ones.
Also, things can be traditional, even if they did start after WWII. Many military traditions date back to it, for example (pretty much any of them involving aircraft, for example, are either a WWI or WWII tradition). Sure, Europe has traditions going back centuries. That doesn't mean new ones can't arise. Sometimes, it's enough to make people think they've been doing something for "longer than anyone can remember" when in fact the previous generation started it.
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.
At the risk of being slapped down for it, I'm gonna sign this one with both hands. Last time I checked, free speech was still very much in vogue on HLP. Let's not forget what it actually entails.
-
Also, things can be traditional, even if they did start after WWII.
Well, the original context I was responding to was a post about how France always had them muslims as a tradition and never needed to ban burka before now etc. Which is total nonsense when we realize the fact that the amount of muslims in France has sharply increased hundredfold from almost zero in recent decades.
Drawing any placating comparisons with French history and traditions is thus stupid since we are talking about an unprecedented, non-traditional and completely new development that they are facing currently. It doesnt mean that something non-traiditional is automatically bad, tough. But at the very least we should certainly stop dishonestly pretending that this is nothing new..
-
This I can agree with. However, France having a Muslim tradition is a bit irrelevant anyway, now that I think of it. The people coming there now are immigrants anyway. They bring their own ways of living with them. Poland, for example, definitely has a Muslim tradition, but our Tatars have about as much in common with Syrian immigrants as ethnic Poles have with Brazilians (TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if Tatars were even less happy with the Syrians than Europe's Christian population). Dunno who brought tradition up in this case, but it's hardly relevant here. From what I know, the majority of immigrants to France aren't even from their former colonies (besides, the French didn't exactly leave those on best terms with their population...).
TBH, I think it needs to be said that "Muslims" are an awfully inaccurate term when we mean, say, Syrian Arabs who make up a majority of immigrants to Europe. I think one of the basic problems of the Western world is enormous ignorance about actual Muslim culture. Men wear turbans, Women wear burkas, they speak Arabic, go to mosques, pray a lot, carry Qu'ran around, eat hummus and occasionally blow themselves and others up. That's the state of knowledge of an average Westerner. A theme-park version of the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Sunni/Shi'a distinction (comparable to the Catholic/Orthodox differences in Christianity), ethnicities such as Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Tatars, the vast amount of distinct cultures and a huge range of regional customs... Nothing ever comes up in most discussions. They're all just "Muslims". HLP is a little better about it, but IMO, not better enough.[/rant]
-
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.
Excessive soapboxing is, and always has been a banable offence.
-
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.
You become a multicultural country when you deliberately accommodate the culture of your colonies in law.
Which France did.
Learn what you are trying to talk about before you talk about it.
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.
This is absolute nonsense. Tell me, then, how many of the traditions of any country genuinely go back thousands of years? How many of them are of wide public observance?
The various days of remembrance/memorial, let us start there. They date, and indeed many of them are selected based upon the events of, the First World War. That's about a hundred years.
Halloween as celebrated in the US/UK is a little bit older. It's recorded to 1895 in the UK and 1911/1915 depending on the source in the US. Still about a hundred years.
National governments, the greatest of all traditional institutions, date to their founding. Would you, perhaps, care to take a wager on how old the government of France is currently? Okay, pay up. The Fifth Republic dates to 1958.
How about celeberating Christmas? Well, it depends on where you go. In Japan, Christmas got popular in the 1960s through American TV. It's now almost as big a thing there as it is in most Western countries, entirely traditional. That's only 50 years. A successful ad campaign in the 1970s managed to so associate eating KFC with Christmastime in the Japanese mind that KFC continues to get slammed on Christmas Day in Japan up through this year. How can it be this year, when it hasn't even happened? They have to take reservations at a fast-food place to have a hope of managing demand. Right about now they're running out of places. That's only 40 years for something to be a tradition.
Men used to wear undershirts in the US with everything. But they stopped doing it in the '40s in cinema because it was considered edgy and sexy. By the '50s, nobody wore undershirts anymore. The tradition changed. That's sixty years.
You're posting nonsense, and you know you're posting nonsense.
France is not screwing their muslim community at all.
And for the record, I dont agree with any bans on burka or burkini,
You posted these in paragraphs that were next to each other. I don't think anything more impressively demonstrates the utter incoherence of your argument.
You don't believe they're screwing with them, except you object to their actions, presumably because they are screwing with them?
I did not say muslims = nazis. I said that ultraconservative, extremist, burka-wearing* muslims = nazis.
Again, you demonstrate total incoherence in your views. Nazism is an ideology that has immediate, total impact on how someone interacts with the outside world.
A burka is not an ideology. It is not even a reliable indicator of an ideology. It is a fashion preference. It in no way necessarily speaks to one's behavior to others. If you wish to argue this point, recall that we are debating this subject because of the existence of the burkini, which is a form of clothing any truly fundamentalist follower of Islam would be utterly horrified by the existence of.
-
You become a multicultural country when you deliberately accommodate the culture of your colonies in law.
Which France did.
Learn what you are trying to talk about before you talk about it.
Certainly not, you become a multicultural country when you have multiple different cultures living inside the country. Laws have nothing to do with it.
This is absolute nonsense. Tell me, then, how many of the traditions of any country genuinely go back thousands of years?
To get back to the topic, the composition of French population when it comes to religion and ethnicity goes back more than a thousand years. Islam will certainly not be a "traditional" thing in France until it exists in the country at significant numbers for much more than a few decades.
But let me quote myself here:
Well, the original context I was responding to was a post about how France always had them muslims as a tradition and never needed to ban burka before now etc. Which is total nonsense when we realize the fact that the amount of muslims in France has sharply increased hundredfold from almost zero in recent decades.
Drawing any placating comparisons with French history and traditions is thus stupid
And that is my point, I am not interested in debating the semantic, linguistic definition of the word "tradition" here.
You posted these in paragraphs that were next to each other. I don't think anything more impressively demonstrates the utter incoherence of your argument.
You don't believe they're screwing with them, except you object to their actions, presumably because they are screwing with them?
No, I object to their actions purely because I have certain libertarian tendencies and so I dislike laws that ban clothing on principle. In reality, bans on burka and burkini absolutely do not screw muslims over wrt integration, in fact they probably do help them to integrate better into secular society, or at worst just dont affect it. As I said, France is an immigrant muslim paradise, and the fact that there are problems with their integration is almost entirely the fault of the muslim minority (and by chain of causation, problematic immigration policy), not majority at all.
A burka is not an ideology. It is not even a reliable indicator of an ideology. It is a fashion preference. It in no way necessarily speaks to one's behavior to others. If you wish to argue this point, recall that we are debating this subject because of the existence of the burkini, which is a form of clothing any truly fundamentalist follower of Islam would be utterly horrified by the existence of.
Burka and burkini are both a pretty reliable indicator of a backwards and hateful nazi-tier ideology that is ultraconservative islam. Kinda like wearing a swastika is a reliable indicator of nazism. It is not just a fashion preference at all, lol. If it would, we would see atheists wearing burkas, too.
-
Burka and burkini are both a pretty reliable indicator of a backwards and hateful ideology that is ultraconservative islam. It is not just a fashion preference at all, lol. If it would, we would see atheists wearing burkas, too.
Sometimes they do. Unfortunately, some people are very very white and can't handle much sunlight.
-
This is absolute nonsense. Tell me, then, how many of the traditions of any country genuinely go back thousands of years? How many of them are of wide public observance?
Is this supposed to be a serious question? Why are you referring only to a country tradition, nationalistic country being a far younger concept than most of the regional traditions.
Now, there's the current Christmas we are celebrating. While this Christianity's Christmas is new, the one it actually replaced is a far more older winter solstice partying tradition, which does date back to 1000s or even before that. Some others come to mind too. Yet, the official record only goes to 1500s in Finland, due to Swedes actively destroying the older Finnish language records. Wasn't the summer solstice or winter solstice partied before that time when there's no written record? I guess not, because there's no written account of it :lol: And yes, muslims are actively trying to stop some of these traditions
Now, talking about those solstice traditions, they did change quickly. Within a couple of years actually. In our case it was believe in Christ or die. So quick changes tend to signify trouble times from the historical perspective, which is why you find the conservatives slowing some developments (and yes, I'm a conservative). And yes, this is about equally cherry picking facts than you did.
It's also funny that you bring up Japan here. Japan being an isolated country, will also take some of the other culture's traditions, but they take it selectively and willingly and they call the shots on what to take. Good luck trying to introduce anything Muslim there. Given the misconceptions between the Father Christmas and Jesus (they nailed Father Christmas to the cross :lol: ), I wonder how long it would take until they'd unintentionally offend a large base of muslims?
Maslo got it right as well, our tatar minority did call publicly for a tightened screening of the incoming refugees. Currently, out of 30 000 arrived, ~ 15 000 have left. So for an update, half of the refugees arriving here were never refugees to begin with. How's that for Social Sciences sample size? Equal development is seen in Sweden on money incentive to leave the country for home. What I do have an issue with is that these very same fellas prevented those who actually needed the asylum from getting here by clogging up the system for a couple of years! Starting from there, I do understand why France banned the burkha, given the size of their Muslim population which likely isn't that different from what we saw here. Tatars are then a completely different story, and there's never been an issue with them here.
Oh, and thanks for the OP for posting this. It's kind of ironic that the ISIS itself is now calling burkas to be removed due to a security and personal identification problems. The same reason the law was introduced in France.
-
Certainly not, you become a multicultural country when you have multiple different cultures living inside the country. Laws have nothing to do with it.
Laws are reflective of the culture inside the country.
For that matter, being possessions of the country and considered its soil, colonies are also inside the country.
Your goalposts, to quote Battuta, are in orbit.
To get back to the topic, the composition of French population when it comes to religion and ethnicity goes back more than a thousand years
Of which almost none of it is relevant to modern France. Tell me, how does the Edict of Nantes relate at all to anything in the modern French life? Indeed, how does anything from pre-Revolutionary France reflect modern France at all?
Your argument is "it's traditional" but you are unable to create a rational idea of what a tradition is, how it is formed, or when something can become traditional. By the standards you are trying to apply here, more than a thousand years the Normans are not traditionally French. That's insane.
And that is my point, I am not interested in debating the semantic, linguistic definition of the word "tradition" here.
You are the one who brought it up. If you're not interested in this debate and are unwilling to defend yourself on it, why did you raise this idea of "what is actually traditionally French" in the first place?
No, I object to their actions purely because I have certain libertarian tendencies and so I dislike laws that ban clothing on principle.
You're arguing that your libertarian tendencies exist in a pure vacuum unconnected to, say, why you'd believe that laws on clothing are a bad principle.
Why are they a bad principle, then? Going by libertarian principles the answer is probably "freedom of expression" and/or "religious freedom", though you have a very poor track record with the former. Thus, your principles tell you that someone is getting screwed by this, being denied their rights. Your argument about "in principle" somehow being detached that from that is a torturous exercise devoid of any kind of internal consistency.
You're now making non-sequiturs about immigration. This isn't about immigration, it has never been about immigration, stop trying to hide behind yet another shifted goalpost.
Burka and burkini are both a pretty reliable indicator of a backwards and hateful nazi-tier ideology that is ultraconservative islam.
A burkini is a garment that actual ultraconservative Islam finds horrific because it allows women to engage in activities they are not supposed to, such as going to the beach and swimming in front of everyone including all kinds of men.
You are either deliberately obtuse or do not actually know what you are talking about.
-
Laws are reflective of the culture inside the country.
For that matter, being possessions of the country and considered its soil, colonies are also inside the country.
Exactly what laws are you even talking about here?
And no, colonies are not inside of the country at all. They are colonies, an outside territory that the country has control over. A country is not multicultural just because it has colonies.
Your argument is "it's traditional" but you are unable to create a rational idea of what a tradition is, how it is formed, or when something can become traditional. By the standards you are trying to apply here, more than a thousand years the Normans are not traditionally French. That's insane.
Normans can be considered traditionally French. Muslims cannot. There is quite a huge difference between those two timeframes.
You are the one who brought it up. If you're not interested in this debate and are unwilling to defend yourself on it, why did you raise this idea of "what is actually traditionally French" in the first place?
I consider the debate about what is "traditionally French" to be irrelevant linguistics. I am speaking about religions only here, and on that topic it is quite self-evident what is traditional and what isnt in France. Muslims are not traditionally French, period. And if you dont accept that, then you are either trolling or we may as well just agree to disagree because I have no idea how to reconcile our viewpoints.
Now if you want to debate whether being of a non-traditional religion can be an obstacle to integration, especially if it has significantly different moral views, then be my guest.
You're arguing that your libertarian tendencies exist in a pure vacuum unconnected to, say, why you'd believe that laws on clothing are a bad principle.
Why are they a bad principle, then? Going by libertarian principles the answer is probably "freedom of expression" and/or "religious freedom", though you have a very poor track record with the former. Thus, your principles tell you that someone is getting screwed by this, being denied their rights. Your argument about "in principle" somehow being detached that from that is a torturous exercise devoid of any kind of internal consistency.
I did say that I disagree with these laws. So from that libertarian point of view, someone is getting screwed over by them. What I wanted to say is that I dont think they have any negative effect on integration of muslims, or as you said, screwing muslims over in the same way as in Algeria. That is BS.
You're now making non-sequiturs about immigration. This isn't about immigration, it has never been about immigration, stop trying to hide behind yet another shifted goalpost.
For me it is, that is at the root of the problems with muslims in France, IMHO. It is also the ultimate cause why people push for burka bans.
A burkini is a garment that actual ultraconservative Islam finds horrific because it allows women to engage in activities they are not supposed to, such as going to the beach and swimming in front of everyone including all kinds of men.
You are either deliberately obtuse or do not actually know what you are talking about.
Burkini = ultraconservative Islam.
People for whom even burkini is not enough = ultra ultra conservative islam.
-
Tell me, then, why the name "Burquini" is trademarked by an Australian company owned by a Lebanese-born woman who emigrated to Australia when she was two years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aheda_Zanetti
It's not the only item of clothing of that sort she designed, either.
Burkini originated about as far from "ultraconservative Islam" as you can get without being a complete "Ramadan-and-Haji Muslim" (a Muslim equivalent of Christmas-and-Easter Christians. Yes, they exist). It's not about being ultraconservative, it's just about having a degree of respect for one's own religion. I'm not fond of religions in general, but I hate hypocrites with burning passion. Plus, it's good for people with skin issues.
-
Burkini originated about as far from "ultraconservative Islam" as you can get without being a complete "Ramadan-and-Haji Muslim" (a Muslim equivalent of Christmas-and-Easter Christians. Yes, they exist).
But thats the thing, Islam in general IS such a backwards and indeed, ultraconservative ideology that it does take some kind of a "Ramadan-and-Haji Muslim" (liberal muslim) to be compatible with Western culture. They can still take the important parts of the religion seriously but gotta leave behind the misogynistic, sexist, oppressive, fundamentalist and homophobic parts. Unfortunately that is much harder for muslims to do than lets say, christians, because they havent gone through hundreds of years of reformation, secularization and modernization. Which is why some people feel the need to help them join the rest of us in 21st century by implementing burka and burkini bans. And I dont agree with such bans but certainly understand the rationale.
-
Here's where you're wrong - it's perfectly possible to be a Muslim and respect the religion's customs without being a bigot (Aheda Zanetti being a prime example). Just like it's possible to believe in Christian religion and not be a WBC-style religious nut. Liberal Muslim isn't the same thing as a "Ramadan-and-Haji" Muslim in name only. One can be liberal in beliefs and still subscribe to most interpretations of Islam other than Wahabism. In particular, Sufis and Shia Muslims are more spiritual and more liberal than Sunnis. Islam is not some sort of evil cult, at least not to a greater degree than any other Abrahamic religion is. It merely has a disproportionate amount of morons as followers.
Islam has not been around quite as long as Christianity, but quite honestly, it's had time to evolve and reform. Muslims in India, Tatars in Eastern Europe, even Iran and Turkey (theocratic governments aside) are quite civilized. On the other hand, Christians can be just as backwards as Muslims from rural Saudi Arabia. Certain Polish Christians, for example, are absurdly homophobic and misogynistic. They even have a radio and a TV channel to spread their BS. You know who I'm talking about unless you spend all your time on foreign forums. :) Just recall the time the government tried to remove that cross from the Presidential Palace's front yard, back in 2012 (really, they only things they were missing were AK-47s and bomb vests). In America, you've got Westboro Baptist Church and related groups. Christians can be just as bad as Muslims.
Intolerance and backwardness is, to a degree, a property of every Abrahamic religion, which is to be expected when one of the core tenets is suppressing other religions. Ultimately, it's up to the followers themselves to avoid being bigots and fit with the modern society. The world would certainly be better if we got rid of those superstitions, but some people treasure them too much and as long as they don't get in other peoples' way, they're mostly harmless. And even when they're used as a justification for being an asshole, banning the justification won't make someone not be an asshole.
-
Here's where you're wrong - it's perfectly possible to be a Muslim and respect the religion's customs without being a bigot (Aheda Zanetti being a prime example).
It is possible that Aheda Zanetti is maybe not a bigot (I wouldnt count on it) but she certainly has a very pathological and oppressive attitude towards nudity and the human body and lots of internalized misogyny and sexism, and is spreading such ideas around by her activities. If she wanted to swim covered head to toe, she should go live in Lebanon. If you are afraid to put on a simple swimsuit, you are hardly a liberal muslim by my definition. You will have trouble integrating into western culture and will be a bad influence on it. OF course we should treat Aheda Zanetti with due respect, but at the same time allowing such people like her to settle inside western country in significant numbers is a mistake.
Muslims in India are quite civilized? Is that why they often have conflicts with Hindu majority?
Tatars are OK but then it is not Tatars that are changing the demographics of France, is it. It is mostly Sunnis from middle east and north Africa. They are the muslim equivalent of WBC, subsaharan African Christians, or those radio Maryja listeners. And I wouldnt want those coming here either.
-
Muslims in India are quite civilized? Is that why they often have conflicts with Hindu majority?
Reality check time! Let's substitute "blacks" for "Muslims", "the U.S." for "India", and "white" for "Hindu" and see if you're a massive racist.
Blacks in the U.S. are quite civilized? Is that why they often have conflicts with the white majority?
Holy ****, that's pretty ****ing racist!
If I hadn't already stepped in prior to this and involved myself in the conversation, this would have netted you one hell of a warning.
-
It is possible that Aheda Zanetti is maybe not a bigot (I wouldnt count on it) but she certainly has a very pathological and oppressive attitude towards nudity and the human body and lots of internalized misogyny and sexism, and is spreading such ideas around by her activities. If she wanted to swim covered head to toe, she should go live in Lebanon. If you are afraid to put on a simple swimsuit, you are hardly a liberal muslim by my definition. You will have trouble integrating into western culture and will be a bad influence on it. OF course we should treat Aheda Zanetti with due respect, but at the same time allowing such people like her to settle inside western country in significant numbers is a mistake.
I give up. She's a fashion designer. A successful, independent businesswoman and a normal member of the upper crust of the Australian society. No, the burkini was not designed because she wanted to force women to wear it. It was designed because there was a market for something like this. In other words, the women actually wanted it. It's in friggin' Wikipedia! The idea was a massive success, not only with orthodox Muslims, but also with more orthodox Jews in Israel, for example.
Really, "Lots of internalized misogyny and sexism"? I don't know her, but I'd wager she'd either be very offended or laughed her back off if she heard that. It reminds me of all those "they're not thinking what they think they're thinking" pseudo-psychological claims that have been made about women, gays, blacks and every other ethnicity that was recently discriminated against. If anything, the world needs more people like her. People who can make connections between traditional and modern worlds. Burkini is a perfect example - it lets women conform to the rules while not being hindered by them. However irrational it is, some people really believe that they're going to get rewarded in afterlife for sticking to their superstition. Burkini and related garments weren't created as a tool of oppression, but to make lives easier for those who believe in what Islam preaches.
Tatars are OK but then it is not Tatars that are changing the demographics of France, is it. It is mostly Sunnis from middle east and north Africa. They are the muslim equivalent of WBC, subsaharan African Christians, or those radio Maryja listeners. And I wouldnt want those coming here either.
OK, so now you go from "Muslims" to "Sunnis from Middle East and North Africa". I suppose it's a step in the right direction. Still an overgeneralization, but you're now much closer to mark. I advise you to stick to the latter version in the future, you'll exclude a lot of good people from your accusations.
Scotty dealt with the part about Muslims in India. Yes, there are conflicts, but around these parts they're more ethnic than religious. They're just as civilized as the Hindu majority and certainly not the only ones responsible for the conflicts. So yeah, that's plain ol' racism. Pretty much the same was (and all too often still is) said about the blacks in the US. Or Palestinians in Israel, for that matter. Dressing up racism as a religious matter doesn't make it any less racist.
-
If she wanted to swim covered head to toe, she should go live in Lebanon
The point where you're spouting **** like "If they don't like it, they should go back to where they came from" is when you are basically a racist. When you're talking about someone who emigrated at the age of 2, it's pretty much indefensible.
You're banned, immediate effect and I will send you a message once we decide how long for.
-
Thanks for giving him an excuse not to bother defending his absurd opinions. There are ways of changing someone's opinion, but censorship is not a way to do it. I already managed to get him to admit it's not "Muslims" that are the problem! Bet that's more than you ever managed to convince him of. If you bothered arguing at this point, you would have probably achieved more than you did with the ban (honestly, his whole post just begs to be torn to pieces).
-
You got him to admit it until the next post where he'd default to it again.
Go look at the Star Citizen threadnought if you have any illusions about how you can persuade maslo to change his mind.
He was already warned that he was on thin ice. He ignored the creaking sound to jump up and down on the ice and post blatantly racist opinions on a public board. While I applaud your attempt to persuade people how wrong their opinions are, there are only so many times one person can manage to drag every single interesting thread round to discussing their bull**** before action has to be taken.
-
am I the only one who has noticed a bunch of non-French people arguing about what is or is not part of French culture?
-
No, this is why I stayed out of this particular argument and instead focused on telling various kinds of Muslims apart. It's a pointless argument anyway, because no matter what sort of Muslims lived in France before, they had little in common with Syrians and Libyans. Syria was under French control only briefly, during the interwar period. Their most notable colonies were in northwest Africa, which is not currently a major source of problems.
You got him to admit it until the next post where he'd default to it again.
Tanks for making sure of that, too. I would've called him out on that if he did that here. Now, once the ban expires, I'll have to dig this thread up and quote him (and risk looking absurd if you banned him for, say, a month). If you simply backed me up instead of throwing him out, he'd either have a hard time finding arguments that this wasn't pure racism, or would have to argue racism is good, which would be simply unwinnable for him.
-
Or you could send him a PM if it's so important to you.
My job as admin is not to back you up so you can win arguments. It's to ensure that this place remains civil. People posting blatantly racist comments is as far as you can get from that.
-
It's not a matter of "winning an argument", this is just a mean to an end. This end is, ultimately, to make him think and, maybe, reconsider his opinion as illogical. Besides, aside from this racism thing, he was nicer than, say, Phantom Hoover usually is (and I distinctly remember you not lifting a finger against him, especially when he's insulting me for those of my opinions you don't agree with, either). My view is that you would have done more good by convincing him that he's wrong than you did by shutting him up.
If you're going to censor opinions that deviate from the acceptable standard, all that'll be left will be preaching to the choir, agreeing on things and discussing minutae, which are pointless activities.
-
aside from this racism thing, he was nicer than, say, Phantom Hoover usually is
Wow.
Wow.
You know, if you dislike the community guidelines actually being enforced that much, you're free to leave. If you honestly believe that banning someone for unacceptable behavior is a bad thing, I can guarantee that I won't miss your contributions.
-
You know nothing helps the alt-right like taking your community, drawing a line down the middle, banning everyone on the right side of the line and tell them that they are racists and there are places on the internet for them, and then repeating the process ad infinitum. This has been a mode of behavior in many online communities and it's been polarizing everyone. When you ban someone, they go somewhere. As much as I ***** about SJWs the alt-right is worse, and it's gaining strength and it is a direct consequence of SJW activities online and IRL.
but this is off topic.
-
Besides, aside from this racism thing, he was nicer than, say, Phantom Hoover usually is (and I distinctly remember you not lifting a finger against him, especially when he's insulting me for those of my opinions you don't agree with, either).
See, this is where you're wrong. Only yesterday I told him to calm down when he insulted Goober (and I felt Goober was as wrong as anyone could possibly be) and I pointed out to the other moderators that I couldn't see any reason why we're letting PH get away with as much as he does.
-
You know nothing helps the alt-right like taking your community, drawing a line down the middle, banning everyone on the right side of the line and tell them that they are racists and there are places on the internet for them, and then repeating the process ad infinitum. This has been a mode of behavior in many online communities and it's been polarizing everyone. When you ban someone, they go somewhere. As much as I ***** about SJWs the alt-right is worse, and it's gaining strength and it is a direct consequence of SJW activities online and IRL.
but this is off topic.
So what do we do about racism now that it hurts the racists' feelings to point out racism?
-
You know nothing helps the alt-right like taking your community, drawing a line down the middle, banning everyone on the right side of the line and tell them that they are racists and there are places on the internet for them, and then repeating the process ad infinitum. This has been a mode of behavior in many online communities and it's been polarizing everyone. When you ban someone, they go somewhere. As much as I ***** about SJWs the alt-right is worse, and it's gaining strength and it is a direct consequence of SJW activities online and IRL.
Dunno dude, many online communities have always had rules against being a dick towards other people, and if the alt-right movement is one thing, it's about being a dick towards other human beings because they are different from you. You'd really think this would fly in 2000?
Because, what it boils down to is that the alt-right is growing becuase people aren't willing to put up with their bull****. The alternative is putting up with their bull**** - either way, the alt-right wins, but this way others lose the least.
-
'putting up with their bull ****' keeps them talking with you. banning them allows them to go make even more concentrated versions of themselves. The fact the current state is the result of 20 years of this process going on doesn't affect it's truth value. This is a process that happens on both sides, someone gets banned from here because they said they don't like muslims, they might go somewhere more right wing and get banned because they don't want to gas the jews, eventually they have to settle on one side or the other and then they get pushed to the extreme. Unless they can find somewhere that doesn't try to socially engineer them. Saying "you are going to make that gay wedding cake it's 2015 deal with it" causes them to deal with it by electing Trump. You can't force it, you can't pull them kicking and screaming into the future all you can do is make them pull you even harder into the past, and all that will happen is the fabric you are both pulling against gets ripped to shreds.
-
I mean, look at Milo Yanopolis, I mean, just... look at (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8KSh9bd6w) him literally. Is that the face of conservatism? he found himself more opposed to what the left has become than in agreement with it, and so he has allied himself with people who honestly largely want to hang him for being a degenerate coal burner. Not because they agree with each other, but because they are collectively opposed to you. It's a bizarre coalition of Nazis, Anarchists, Christians, Pagans, Atheists, Libertarians, Republicans, and other random ideologies. how the **** did this happen? How the **** do we have people on the left trying to put INTO place segregation and laws that reverse presumption of innocence? That being color blind is racist? How the **** did we end up with the Democrats railroading a bland career politician backed by big money (including the GOD DAMNED Koch brothers!?!) with no principals and probably singlehandedly cause two wars and a massive terrorist organization, who has for most of her career talked about how "marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman" and the Republicans have nominated.... that thing... "kill their families", "deportation force", "we need to close the internet", an isolationist foreign policy in favor of tariffs opposed to free trade and international military alliances (little things like NATO) who think transgender people should use whatever bathroom they feel like.
How the **** did this HAPPEN?
I am honestly worried about civil war.
-
Yeah, things aren't that bad. Milo is just a moron.
People can and will be forced, kicking and screaming, to join the future. They won't like it, but less of their kids will care each generation.
-
He has a lot of people listening and many of those people vote and engage in activism, dismissing them as morons is part of what has gotten us to where we are.
-
Bobbeau, what you're describing is not the result of "SJW" but simply because both US parties have pushed to the right so hard that there's no more room for the republican party to breathe. The Democratic party, if it would run in the Netherlands, would be considered *very* right wing, just like Bernie Sanders is considered a communist for bassically arguing for a return to the New Deal.
Your kicking and screaming analogy does not really hold up. To argue this, I present you XKCD:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/marriage.png)
People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years.
-
He has a lot of people listening and many of those people vote and engage in activism, dismissing them as morons is part of what has gotten us to where we are.
Well if they don't like it they should find some less ignorant opinions to hold.
-
OK, that sounds like a plan and I'm sure it will work.
...I wonder if there is still a manufacturer of zyklon b I can invest my money in.
-
OK, that sounds like a plan and I'm sure it will work.
...I wonder if there is still a manufacturer of zyklon b I can invest my money in.
I'm totally aware of how awful my statement sounds, but how ****ing hard is it to get everyone on the 'everyone has the same rights' page?
-
apparently pretty hard.
-
'putting up with their bull ****' keeps them talking with you. banning them allows them to go make even more concentrated versions of themselves.
You've yet to explain why they don't do that regardless (they do) and why it's a bad thing to allow extremists to create ever more extreme versions of their views, slowly alienating everyone and everything around them.
That last bit is key because it illustrates the delusion you're operating under, that somehow extremism increases its mass appeal the more it extreme it becomes. Increasing extremism is a self-perpetuating failure mode. The more extreme you become the less appealing your message and the more difficulty you have interacting with reality to advance it. This causes you to become more extreme, continuing the cycle. (c.f. the inability of the Republican-controlled House to pass legislation, even Republican legislation)
If Milo wants to have a civil war, it'll be a short one. It's fun to talk the talk but few of his followers are up for his agenda in practice, much like the white supremacists talk a good game on racial holy war but very, very few of them ever try to put it into practice. So all right then. Let's do it. It'll be quick. It'll provide a useful reminder who the tyrants in patriots and tyrants actually are.
-
because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them. The opposite of what you describe is happening, you are purging everyone who is too much of an "extremist" and so they end up siding with the actual extremists because it's the only other option and they are welcoming.
I have not followed Milo enough to know what he wants, I just see him pop up every now and then, typically doing something flamboyant and ridiculous or sitting with a **** eating grin while someone he doesn't like makes them selves look like the bad guy in front of him. I actually can't think of anything from him in like 6 months now that I think about it.
MY concerns about a civil war are due to the ever more extreme polarization of the population. Trump might win. It might be you who are on the side of rebels who start it. I actually think that is the more likely scenario, if Trump wins civil war is much more likely. If he and a republican led congress started mass deportations of Mexicans and Muslims and then started defunding universities they viewed as being too Leftist, do you honestly not see it as a possibility?
-
because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.
... Err, I'd struggle to view Maslo as someone who is simply "right of center".
edit: removed bits about civil war as they made no sense in context.
-
because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.
If you honestly believe that is what is happening here and now, then there is no having a rational discussion with you.
Because you are still here, and are demonstrably taking a right-of-center position, and nobody is banning you.
And you are arguing that there are no "mild" right of center outlets; that there is merely everything left of center as a spectrum (or do you believe that's also controlled by extremists? If so, my ideological apostasy about Bernie has remained unpunished) and then the extreme right as sources. This is obviously wrong; there is a spectrum in both directions. The Alt-Right is not the Right in general, and their name acknowledges such.
Trump might win.
In which case he is manifestly unable to work within the restricted-powers framework of the federal government, he will overstep his bounds and get impeached long before there's a civil war. You're arguing about polarization but it's a fool's errand because the polarization you're arguing for isn't so much about basic ideas as you want to believe; it's about particular cherrypicked political positions. Your scenario would involve many and sundry impeachable offenses, massive resistance from the federal courts (who have been arresting this exact scenario for the past two years), and the collapse of the Trump government in the face of an uncooperative Federal bureaucracy that won't do what he wants because it knows it'll get arrested if it does. Doing what Trump desires would require a massive, total turnover of non-appointed Federal employees; and that's just doing what Trump wants to do, not even accomplishing your nightmare.
-
were you here for Liberator?
I was giving that as an example, not claiming he was going to do exactly that. But if he gets elected, there is a good chance the Republicans take congress, then he gets to appoint some supreme court judges, then he decides to do some **** that's illegal, has enough power and allies to get somewhere with it, half the government supports him, the other half thinks he should be arrested... see where I am going?
-
because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.
... Err, I'd struggle to view Maslo as someone who is simply "right of center".
I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording. When he says something genuinely facepalmy like "Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really" people get so hung up on the outrageous choice of words that they forget that the basic idea behind it is pretty standard: that people who see burkas as a good thing due to mainly islamic cultural-religious reasons have a very high likelihood of holding other extremely bigoted views (about women, society, sexual minorities, science, politics, ethics, you name it) as well, and thus seeing a person wearing a burka is a red flag that probably either they're a such a bigot themselves or someone else who compels them to wear it is.
-
were you here for Liberator?
I was giving that as an example, not claiming he was going to do exactly that. But if he gets elected, there is a good chance the Republicans take congress, then he gets to appoint some supreme court judges, then he decides to do some **** that's illegal, has enough power and allies to get somewhere with it, half the government supports him, the other half thinks he should be arrested... see where I am going?
The fact that "can't conduct a civil argument" and "lean right of center" overlap with significant frequency is the moderation staff's fault, just so you know.
-
because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.
... Err, I'd struggle to view Maslo as someone who is simply "right of center".
I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording.
Yes, but not amongst the people I consider to be "Right of center" - I have a rather dutch perspective on this (obviously), but Maslo's statements would not fit with the two centre-of-right parties over here. Both Democrats '66 and the Christian Democratic Appeal value religious freedom for their own reasons. The only party that matches Maslo's rhetoric is the Party For Freedom, which, although mainstream (whilst trying very hard not to be) is currently the party that is furthest to the right in Dutch politics.
-
I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording. When he says something genuinely facepalmy like "Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really" people get so hung up on the outrageous choice of words that they forget that the basic idea behind it is pretty standard: that people who see burkas as a good thing due to mainly islamic cultural-religious reasons have a very high likelihood of holding other extremely bigoted views (about women, society, sexual minorities, science, politics, ethics, you name it) as well, and thus seeing a person wearing a burka is a red flag that probably either they're a such a bigot themselves or someone else who compels them to wear it is.
His view is frighteningly mainstream. Netherlands have always been liberal, but Maslo is not far from an average person in Poland. I suspect people France and certain regions of Germany would also agree with his views. Sure, it'd take someone further right to agree with his wording (which is typical of those who prefer people to react emotionally instead of rationally), but after you water it down to the crux of argument, it's not even a particularly uncommon opinion.
I really wish people got hung on wording less and focused on the real sense of what is being said. How something is said is logically irrelevant (though it may convey nonexplicit intentions on speaker's part), we should focus on what is being said. Maslo's way of presenting his opinion makes it seem ridiculous, but if it was said directly it'd suddenly merit discussion and if one sugarcoated it enough, half the board would've probably agreed with it (at least until someone pointed out what's under the sugar). This problem is far too common, not only on this forum. It's very frustrating when an otherwise valid, if unorthodox opinion is thrown into the "unacceptable" bin just because of a bad choice of words.
Indeed, I believe people paying too much attention to how things are said is the entire reason Trump has come as far as he did. Just look at him, he can say two different things in a very short time span and people still follow him instead of calling him a filthy liar and hypocrite (and those that do call him that get ignored).
You know, if you dislike the community guidelines actually being enforced that much, you're free to leave. If you honestly believe that banning someone for unacceptable behavior is a bad thing, I can guarantee that I won't miss your contributions.
I dislike them being selectively enforced, which was what this line referred to. Direct insults to other forum members are just as prohibited as racism, yet the former seem to be easier to get away with on this forum. If anything, it should be the other way around, since racism can sometimes be reasoned with (not only that, it's an easy opinion to argue against due to overwhelming evidence), while childish insults can't.
See, this is where you're wrong. Only yesterday I told him to calm down when he insulted Goober (and I felt Goober was as wrong as anyone could possibly be) and I pointed out to the other moderators that I couldn't see any reason why we're letting PH get away with as much as he does.
Well, it's good to see him finally getting a comeuppance. Still, having an "unacceptable" opinion seems to attract moderation much faster than being a rude jerk. See above for why I don't consider this a proper order of things.
-
I really wish people got hung on wording less and focused on the real sense of what is being said. How something is said is logically irrelevant (though it may convey nonexplicit intentions on speaker's part), we should focus on what is being said.
I don't care how Maslo says "Pakis go home!"
I don't care how he sugar coats it.
That sort of opinion has no place on HLP.
-
I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording.
Yes, but not amongst the people I consider to be "Right of center" - I have a rather dutch perspective on this (obviously), but Maslo's statements would not fit with the two centre-of-right parties over here. Both Democrats '66 and the Christian Democratic Appeal value religious freedom for their own reasons. The only party that matches Maslo's rhetoric is the Party For Freedom, which, although mainstream (whilst trying very hard not to be) is currently the party that is furthest to the right in Dutch politics.
Yeah, but... I believe that was my point. His statements and rhetoric are obviously not mainstream, but a pretty straightforward good-faith interpretation of the underlying ideas (such as the one I gave) is.
I'm not saying one shouldn't get hung up on rhetoric (because rhetoric still matters), only that one should remember that what they're getting hung up on is often (not always!) just that: rhetoric.
-
I don't care how Karajorma says "kill all Americans"
I don't care how he sugar coats it.
That sort of opinion has no place on HLP.
-
If I'd said that, you might have a point.
The difference is that I don't know what the ethnic insult for Lebanese people is. I'm quite happy about that fact.
-
if he'd said what you said You might have a point.
Forgive me if I missed something, but we are still talking about him saying that the Burka is a symbol of Islamic oppression, right? or in his less eloquent wording, something like "burka = nazi flag", right? just want to make sure he didn't say something else stupid.
also, apparently its "Leb" or "Lebbo" according to the Racial Slur Database, but it's only really used in Australia because they had a bunch of Lebanese immigrants in the 80s for some reason.
(http://orig04.deviantart.net/fa22/f/2015/305/b/c/the_more_you_know_emote_by_tinystalker-d9f6q1o.gif)
[edit]
Wait, it just occurred to me, you are accusing him of being racist against Labanese (and I'm assuming Syria and Iraq and Turkey) people? off the top of my head, and do fact check me if you think I'm wrong, but neither the burka nor the nikab is particularly historically common there, with ISIS being largely responsible for what is there now. Those are more Saudi/Persian/Pashtun (you know, the kinda Nazi-like cultures of the Ummah) associated artifacts.[/edit]
-
Did you even bother to figure out what he got banned for before telling everyone that I was wrong to do it?
If she wanted to swim covered head to toe, she should go live in Lebanon
The point where you're spouting **** like "If they don't like it, they should go back to where they came from" is when you are basically a racist. When you're talking about someone who emigrated at the age of 2, it's pretty much indefensible.
-
ah, yeah, that's a lot less strawmany than I initially thought.