|
While it is impossible to eradicate an idea through legislative means, I support any and all tools used in the curtailing of any of the monotheistic traditions. Starve the beast.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the criterion in the US for constitutionality of laws restricting basic individual rights is strict scrutiny, defined as follows:
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
The_Book_Of_Harry posted:While it is impossible to eradicate an idea through legislative means, I support any and all tools used in the curtailing of any of the monotheistic traditions. Why only monotheistic traditions? You think that polytheistic ones don't have their own problems?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that, for example, the French ban had some french-muslims supporters, and that the french approach to the legal rights and responsibilities of its citizens is different to that of the US. I think there's grounds to say that the US perspective is too restrictive, but there are definitely pros and cons of each tack, so it's more about what you're willing to give up, for what you want to gain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I think there's grounds to say that the US perspective is too restrictive, but there are definitely pros and cons of each tack, so it's more about what you're willing to give up, for what you want to gain. You seem to very aggressively avoiding taking a position
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
My first post itt has me taking a position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So in a very real sense, what people wear is already controlled (I mean you can't walk outside naked), so 'let people wear what they want' is a bullshit cop-out, you have to engage in what is a valid or invalid reason to restrain people's rights. I'm going to come strong out the gates and then fizzle by saying that the philosophy that usually presented with the burqa ban is justified, by the ban is not. This is a very good post. I think I'm very tentatively of the position that the dehumanizing element of the full face coverings of the Burka and Niqab push them into the "good thing to ban" territory, though the fact I think in Europe a good motivation is being used as an excuse for what is actually xenophobia and that complicates matters. Almost any oppressive custom has vocal support from people who are of the oppressed group, simply saying "oh you know better than they do about what they want" is not a trump card, it's far more murky than that. There's many women in the FLDS that fully support it's (illegal) customs for example, FGM is most often carried out by older female relatives who were victims of it, etc, etc. The fact that the line between allowing self-determination and empowering oppression is thin and murky doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
The_Book_Of_Harry posted:While it is impossible to eradicate an idea through legislative means, I support any and all tools used in the curtailing of any of the monotheistic traditions. At last, the time of Zeus is nigh once more. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
This is honestly a South Park issue if there ever was one: Forcing a gender to wear dehumanizing clothing is bad. Banning religious clothing is bad. I don't know if the truth is in the middle as much as there isn't a good position to take. If a gun was against my head I'd say I don't see a strong ethical difference seperating Western decency standards and those held by religious Muslims, but it's the government's responsibility to protect individuals who are facing unwanted and aggressive social pressures, retribution or intimidation. However I consider it the same way I consider abortion. I'm not served by having a vocal opinion, just let people do what they like and keep me out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Why exactly is this different from wearing a motorcycle helmet and walking down the street? Or wearing a large beard and sunglasses to be equally obscured? Why do we put a law for burqas and not those other scenarios if this is how people interpret covered faces? suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Notions of modesty and nudity are fairly arbitrary. Enforcing them at the end of a gun is retarded regardless of what idiotic smokescreens you use. Do any of those in favor of the bans take their 13 yo daughters to the beach topless, or bitch and moan about those who don't? gently caress off and stop legislating dress codes for women you weirdo throwbacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This post is actually a very good criticism of the ideological foundation of European society. Do tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:There is also a very real white savior complex where western liberals think they can somehow usher in the liberalization of Islam through external mandate Interested how you distinguish this "complex" from a legitimate concern for human rights in Muslim populations expressed by a white person? I mean, there are lots of liberal Muslims who want white people (feeble as the race may be) talking about this stuff in western societies to generate awareness. Western feminism is still conspicuously silent on the topic of women's rights in Muslim countries, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
The_Book_Of_Harry posted:While it is impossible to eradicate an idea through legislative means, I support any and all tools used in the curtailing of any of the monotheistic traditions. Smug New Atheist poo poo like this just makes religious people cling tighter to their beliefs, fyi. Secular Humanist posted:Interested how you distinguish this "complex" from a legitimate concern for human rights in Muslim populations expressed by a white person? It's pretty obvious when it's more about ragging on minority groups who dare to be not-like-you, rather than a legitimate concern for human rights. The otherizing tone is a dead giveaway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Western feminism is still conspicuously silent on the topic of women's rights in Muslim countries, for example. No they aren't, and your eagerness to lean on a tired and disproven trope has shown your hand too early. The tired argument of "western feminism ignores issues in Islam" is a lazy way for the intellectually disingenuous to try and shift attention away from the obvious prejudices of their own ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
botany posted:
SSNeoman posted:It is. Dude we moved from slavery to dogwhistles in about a century. That's fantastic societal progress. No racism is not over, that's an absurd statement and not one that the other poster was making. Okay, good. Someone made the obvious point here so I don't have to. I don't know if you really thought I was trying to argue racism was finished, but if you don't think things have improved since the turn of the 20th century then I don't know what to tell you. Who What Now posted:Women are too stupid to know what's good for them, got it. Is that really the stance you want to be taking? Is that really the stance you think I'm taking? Come on. You are smart enough that I can't see this poor of an understanding as anything but deliberate and disingenuous. Yet again, though, I'm lucky in that someone else took this one on: Jarmak posted:Almost any oppressive custom has vocal support from people who are of the oppressed group, simply saying "oh you know better than they do about what they want" is not a trump card, it's far more murky than that. There's many women in the FLDS that fully support it's (illegal) customs for example, FGM is most often carried out by older female relatives who were victims of it, etc, etc. The fact that the line between allowing self-determination and empowering oppression is thin and murky doesn't mean it doesn't exist. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Is that really the stance you think I'm taking? Come on. When you expressly say, and I quote, "then we in the west are right to oppose the burqa/hijab/whatever else, even when the women themselves are adamant that they prefer it" then I see no other thing you could possibly mean but that. You're expressly saying that the woman's opinions on this don't matter, and yet somehow you don't seem to see a problem with this because you believe they have the wrong opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:When you expressly say, and I quote, "then we in the west are right to oppose the burqa/hijab/whatever else, even when the women themselves are adamant that they prefer it" then I see no other thing you could possibly mean but that. You're expressly saying that the woman's opinions on this don't matter, and yet somehow you don't seem to see a problem with this because you believe they have the wrong opinion. Okay, yes, it's deliberate, good to know. First of all, your paraphrase of me read: "Women are too stupid to know what's good for them". Not The women, or the women in question. Just women. You know - you know - that you wrote that sentence that way to not only make me appear Islamophobic, but misogynistic as well. Please only levy one strawmanned form of bigotry at a time, thank you. But anyway: just really go back and re-read like maybe up to a full paragraph, not half of a sentence: GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The salient point then becomes: is the wearing of these articles of clothing something more akin to a fashion choice, or more akin to a form of oppression, imposed largely by the men of that society? I don't have a hard and fast answer here, but if it's more toward the latter, then we in the west are right to oppose the burqa/hijab/whatever else, even when the women themselves are adamant that they prefer it. If it's the former, then we should leave well enough alone. I'm not even taking the position that's in bold, but even less, it's not at all the position you are construing it as (i.e., women don't know any better). Perhaps instead of "the women" I should have said "the women in this category"? That's about as charitable as I can possibly be to you here. Again, re-read the paragraph above that: quote:Let's just imagine a case from our side of the cultural divide: the pressure on women to be skinny in the US. Plenty of women will say they feel amazing throwing up after meals or starving themselves, or that they feel legitimately bad about having love handles or some such thing. It's not that a specific man has forced them to go on a diet, they do it of their own volition. But the response to this phenomenon is generally one of trying to change that cultural norm; trying to stop women from feeling this way and get them to prefer having a bit fuller figure. No one seems to be arguing that anorexia is good as long as the woman really wants it. So now, again, consider: would you tell any of the women negatively affected by this cultural paradigm that they are better off not following it, even if they claim they prefer to? Do you hold the opinion that it's worse to be anorexic than otherwise, even if some anorexic women claim to be happy that way? Even if your answer varies on a case by case basis - maybe some anorexic women aren't doing that much harm, and they're okay, but others are being hurt, so for them being anorexic is a problem - wouldn't there be at least more than zero people for whom you would want to change their circumstances if you could? Which is why I went on to pose the burqa issue as a question: I'm not sure if wearing the burqa is comparable to anorexia, but it could be a similar phenomenon - a practice that's not as good as the alternative that's brought on by toxic cultural norms. I think the only position I'm really staking a strong claim in is that critiquing a cultural norm is not illegitimate simply because those I perceive as being negatively affected by that norm claim to enjoy or even prefer it. Is that really so radical a position?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think the only position I'm really staking a strong claim in is that critiquing a cultural norm is not illegitimate simply because those I perceive as being negatively affected by that norm claim to enjoy or even prefer it. Is that really so radical a position? Its not radical but its not also particularly relevant to this discussion. Whether or not Muslim women are in primary support or opposition to burqas and hijab doesn't matter in the largest issue of a white-christian social hegemony trying to mandate social change of a Muslim minority population by fiat. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Whether or not Muslim women are in primary support or opposition to burqas and hijab doesn't matter in the largest issue of a white-christian social hegemony trying to mandate social change of a Muslim minority population by fiat. Just out of curiosity, and not necessarily directly pertaining to the topic: would you still agree with this if the words in italics were changed to "by conversation and equal pushback in the realm of social pressure"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Just out of curiosity, and not necessarily directly pertaining to the topic: would you still agree with this if the words in italics were changed to "by conversation and equal pushback in the realm of social pressure"? Define equal pushback in the realm of social pressure
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So now, again, consider: would you tell any of the women negatively affected by this cultural paradigm that they are better off not following it, even if they claim they prefer to? There is a very big difference between "telling" a woman that she's better off rejecting society's pressure to conform to a certain standard of beauty and forcing her to, and you're eliding that here. Should we force-feed thin women to make them stop conforming to contemporary male-dominated standards of beauty?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
All social pressure is coercion, even the simple act of 'telling' implies 'I don't like you if you're doing this', which carries behind it other implied consequences, each of which is backed up by force. Total, absolute freedom is impossible as long as people are embedded in a social context, and as long as they wish to remain socialized. Legal enforcement is just one arm of enforcing social norms, but there is nothing special about it, other than the fact that it is rather extreme (which is why it's important to not legislate lots of laws, it should be used in moderation). Like I said, the burqa bans are bad, but basically all the reasons presented against it itt are just flat out wrong. Compare how society actually works to how it is being described here, and you'll see massive differences. There's this obsessive, almost fanatical, belief in the Rousseauian state-of-nature perfection, which laws and social norms only limit or impact in a a negative way, so it is better to do nothing. Yet that isn't how any country in the world operates right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Legal enforcement is just one arm of enforcing social norms, but there is nothing special about it, other than the fact that it is rather extreme So, there is nothing special about it other than the thing that makes it special I appreciate the sheer bravado it takes to brush off the entire point of the distinction as if it's irrelevant Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So, there is nothing special about it other than the thing that makes it special
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Depending on the social environment, non-legal enforcement can be as or more extreme though. Yeah, but not in this case. If you cannot recognize the issue with places like France using the most powerful form of social sanction against the clothing habits of a migrant minority, I am not sure what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, but not in this case. If you cannot recognize the issue with places like France using the most powerful form of social sanction against the clothing habits of a migrant minority, I am not sure what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm pretty sure rudatron is talking about freedom and the social context in a more general sense than the specifics of the burqa ban, and so am I. Ok, but that is not the discussion here at all. We're talking about a specific set of laws in a specific contemporary context. Larger general questions about law and the social contract don't matter here unless you want to apply them specifically to this topic. Otherwise we are just debating angels dancing on the heads of a pin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
It's amazing how quickly some self-proclaimed liberals in the West will bend over and accept the oppression of women or the outright execution of homosexuals when the perpetrators are non-Western. Outright bans on the most egregious examples of oppression are seriously imperfect and it would be best to find smarter way forward (particularly ditching the real xenophobia evoked in some nativist quarters), but it's infuriating that opponents immediately resort to cultural relativist bullshit and attack those actually wanting to address the problems as racist. Handwaving the psychological harm of the dehumanization of women and girls through such garments by misogynistic segments of societies is not far removed from accepting the physical harm of female genital mutilation—sometimes, progress requires acknowledgement that not all cultural norms are compatible with the society we want to build for our children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Considering France still requires sterilizing trans-people who undergo transition, it's probably not accurate to say that they support LGBT rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:It's amazing how quickly some self-proclaimed liberals in the West will bend over and accept the oppression of women or the outright execution of homosexuals when the perpetrators are non-Western. Outright bans on the most egregious examples of oppression are seriously imperfect and it would be best to find smarter way forward (particularly ditching the real xenophobia evoked in some nativist quarters), but it's infuriating that opponents immediately resort to cultural relativist bullshit and attack those actually wanting to address the problems as racist. There is a difference between cultural relativism and recognizing the limitations of social progress through exogenous mandate. I have not seen anyone here argue the burqa is good, or that we have no right to be critical of it as Westerners. The problem is that attempts to mandate our cultural habits onto an immigrant population is ineffective at best and at a worst a recipe for the continuation of those same habits we wish to end. I do not know why so many people are struggling with the concept that someone can think a practice is bad but also think exogenous mandate will not solve it. EDIT: And I do not know why people keep thinking of Muslim women as a political force as completely helpless unless us wonderful westerners come to their rescue. Muslim women have and continue to push meaningfully for their rights within their own cultural space. Our clumsy attempts at "westernizing" Islam are naive, patronizing, and worst, they empower social conservatives within these groups to fight against natural endogenous progress. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:It's amazing how quickly some self-proclaimed liberals in the West will bend over and accept the oppression of women or the outright execution of homosexuals when the perpetrators are non-Western. Nobody here is doing this. I think it's safe to assume that literally everybody here finds forcing women to wear burqas and the persecution of lgbt people abhorrent. Folks like you, however, are cheerleading a law that directly strips women (and disproportionately women of color) of their right to wear what they like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Banning regular bikinis is probably more progressive because they support the patriarchy much more thoroughly in Western society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No one seems to be arguing that anorexia is good as long as the woman really wants it. Anorexia isn't bad because it's a cultural expectation, it's bad because it's unhealthy and people are literally destroying their bodies in pursuit of that cultural ideal. Like the foot binding comparison brought up earlier, you're equating wearing a face covering to actual physical harm. Is leg shaving something that should be banned because our culture expects it from women? How about high heels? Or makeup?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Banning regular bikinis is probably more progressive because they support the patriarchy much more thoroughly in Western society. Like there exists a social pressure for a woman to be under the thumb of a man within regressive communities, there's no social pressure to wear a bikini, you can go to the beach in less revealing swimwear and no one will care. Mel Mudkiper posted:So, there is nothing special about it other than the thing that makes it special Mel Mudkiper posted:The problem is that attempts to mandate our cultural habits onto an immigrant population is ineffective at best and at a worst a recipe for the continuation of those same habits we wish to end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Ok, but that is not the discussion here at all. We're talking about a specific set of laws in a specific contemporary context. Larger general questions about law and the social contract don't matter here unless you want to apply them specifically to this topic. Otherwise we are just debating angels dancing on the heads of a pin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's a logical extension of enforcing social norms, not a wildcard style special exception that comes out of nowhere. No it isn't. Law is not a logical extension of enforcing social norms. If you double mores they don't become laws, they just becomes mores that are twice as strong. A law is a specific set of social norms that society deems most crucial to enforce and thus establishes an explicitly codified method of their enforcement. By simple fact that they are explicitly codified and legislated they are in fact a special exception to other mores. quote:But that's exactly what has to happen for those cultural habits to be adopted at all, and if they're not adopted then they're effectively not integrated, which is going to lead to problems. Whether that mandate should be an explicit ban or some other process is debatable, but every society and community, by simple necessity, requires shared cultural habits to operate, and for everyone in it to feel safe. If there isn't that shared system, you're creating a recipe for constant, unending conflict. No, society does not require a total consistency in thought and behavior in order to function. Many societies have existed with countless sub-cultures and sub-groups that do not follow major parts of the majority culture. Would you argue we should go to Lancaster and force the Amish by law to start owning and driving automobiles instead of using carriages for the sake of social homogeneity? Yes, there are certain behaviors a society necessitates it holds all its members accountable to. Murder, theft, etc. These are behaviors a society literally cannot function without a clear mandate on. However, a burqa is not an issue of such overwhelming social necessity that it requires a similar total blanket ban by power of law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
I can't see your 'double mores' argument as anything other than pure legalistic proceduralism. Any social more that has enough people feeling strongly about it, will eventually become a law, one way or another. The ones that don't become law don't have the political manpower behind it to support them, if they did then they will. Codification is not a metaphysical process, it is a result of political action by communities. Of course communities don't have to be totally consistent, people are not the borg, but there has to be enough shared values between ordinary people to believe that they will not be the target of political violence, which is necessary for them to feel safe. If they do not feel safe, they will become paranoid and aggressive, in order to dissuade action against them, which eventually creates conflicts between communities, which then retaliate, and you have a civil war on your hands. It's not enough to ban murder and theft, you have to make people believe that they're in this thing together, otherwise they will find ways to kill each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But that's exactly what has to happen for those cultural habits to be adopted at all Wait a second, what makes you so sure that this is what "has to happen"? The U.S. doesn't have any such restrictions, and yet we don't seem to have a tougher time getting Muslim immigrants to integrate. rudatron posted:Any social more that has enough people feeling strongly about it, will eventually become a law, one way or another. Not a convincing justification when you're talking about a law that actively discriminates against a minority. A lot of people in the South felt very strongly that Jim Crow was the only way to protect Southern "values" from a minority that they perceived as a menace. That doesn't mean it wasn't an absolutely abhorrent violation of human rights. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't see your 'double mores' argument as anything other than pure legalistic proceduralism. Any social more that has enough people feeling strongly about it, will eventually become a law, one way or another. This is simply objectively wrong by every academic study of sociology that exists. quote:Of course communities don't have to be totally consistent, people are not the borg, but there has to be enough shared values between ordinary people to believe that they will not be the target of political violence, which is necessary for them to feel safe. If they do not feel safe, they will become paranoid and aggressive, in order to dissuade action against them, which eventually creates conflicts between communities, which then retaliate, and you have a civil war on your hands. It's not enough to ban murder and theft, you have to make people believe that they're in this thing together, otherwise they will find ways to kill each other. Ah, now we have gotten to delicious bigoted center of the lollipop. Please tell me, what about burqas makes people fear political violence? Are you either arguing that we should ban burqas so that westerners will not fear political violence from Muslims in the communities, or even more absurdly that we should ban burqas to prevent muslims themselves from suffering political violence from prejudiced westerners?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:46
|
|