Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
...you are the person here arguing in favour of state sanctioned dress codes.
I know! It's like adding air to a balloon!
One of my younger sister's best friends, growing up, came from a Muslim family. They owned several businesses in town, were quite progressive, etc. The women in the family didn't wear, and certainly weren't forced to wear, Burqas.
Except that sometime in '96 or '97, my sister's friend's mother got a fairly serious variety of cancer. She spent a lot of time in the hospital and turned to her religion for comfort. She started wearing a burqa around town, partially, she said, because it made her feel closer to her god in an extremely trying time for her, and partially, I suspect, because it was a dignified way of dealing with the physical effects of radiation and chemotherapy.
I don't believe she needed the state to step in and save her from the evil nazi-men and the jewish pieces of flair in your imagination.
Sounds like further isolating and suppressing the muslim population is just going to make things worse, not better. The stronger the our culture vs. their culture thing gets the more radicals thrive.
Given the rising international tension between governments and their citizens, this seems not only a poorly thought out action, but a very poorly timed one as well.
Personally I'm totally in favour of polite society telling racist, misogynistic fucktards to go away. If anything allowing to do whatever they want legitimises their bullshit.
If you want to address the problem of oppression among the immigrant population in France do everything you can to address issues of poverty and social isolation. Once they start making a decent living and aren't treated like a bunch of leeches on society radical movements lose their steam pretty quickly.
So you support it, even though you don't know if it will work and suspect it may even harm your cause?
Part of me feels exactly the same way. However, if the act causes more harm than good, I'd rather see the French government spend some money and effort to provide options and ease the transition for these women if/when they wish to leave their current life style behind.
(unless you're murdering them all I guess)
So you want people to govern out of spite?
I'm sure I left that mustard gas around here somewhere...
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Well it is funny in a thread comparing burquas to swastikas we've got someone pushing a nazi belief. Wait I mean terrifying.
So you recognize that it's probably going to actually hurt your position, but your supportive of it because it infringes on the rights of a group that holds different religious views than yours. Militant is right; religious extremism doesn't require a belief in God at all.
Oh nonsense. Why do you think radical religion isn't such a problem in wealthy nations?
Fuck the biggest pool of informants the FBI has here in their counter terrorism efforts are muslims
Going after a religion just gives credence to the radical line of "exterior group X is attacking your faith/culture/people/family!" You can see it in the way terrorist groups abroad use our bullshit anti-muslim stuff here in their recruiting efforts.
There are many relatively progressive Muslim women who wear such coverings willingly and not due to community pressure and/or brainwashing. For instance, some professional women (doctors, lawyers, etc) in Turkey choose to veil in public to protect themselves from the secular male gaze. It provides them a small bubble of privacy and protection and eases their lives.
The state has no place in mediating or dictating the meaning of such items, particularly when it is the majority telling the minority what their symbols "really" mean. This is problematic on its face.
hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
...wow.
That's a definition of attack so broad as to be meaningless.
This may be true but it certainly does not intentionally marginalize or stigmatize one religious group out of many. Treating one particular religious group unfairly has vastly different implications than creating general conditions that may reduce overall religious adherence.
hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
Is there a study that backs this up? Anywhere? Or is this just crazytown belief systems?
Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.
Pretty much this right here. Any religion that survives for any length of time is going to have some sort of persecution narrative. People who are seriously committed to a religious belief are going to double-down on it in the face of assaults on that faith. I would go so far as to say that this is why you find hardcore Christians in secular Western countries so desperate to paint themselves as somehow being persecuted.
Integration and polite indifference (reasonable accommodation where possible; polite, yet firm, non-compliance where accommodation isn't possible) are really the way forward. Every religion is going to have hardcore adherents and probably always will. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes there are going to be people who either feel victimized within that subculture or are perceived to be victims (willing or unwilling) by the mainstream culture. Going into the subculture and trying to steamroll them into compliance is going to lead to disaster. Having the resources in place to help those who want out to get out is about all we can do.
Also on PSN: twobadcats
Quite the opposite actually even, it'll force the women into more isolation. I have not seen a convincing argument otherwise.
Right I feel like we're going into the same territory as some of the gun control discussions (in that many propositions would be great if they stopped guns from physically existing). Ought is not is, banning the burqa doesn't get rid of its reasons for being imposed on women in France or anywhere and doesn't do shit, you end up putting the people it's supposed to help in the worst spot.
This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.
The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.
You're only handicapping your own education by doing so. David Irving is a textbook example: he's as fascist, loony and racist as they come, but he's also proven to be an invaluable asset in illustrating the entire ugly picture of the world during the late 30s to mid 40s. We would know almost next to nothing about Winston Churchill or FDR if it wasn't for the tireless digging of Irving.
The only cost that we had to pay for the greater illumination of our past is the sharp but fleeting pain in our collective chests when we read about Irving's thoughts on the matter of the Jewish population.
...How is the Burqa ban mounting an effective attack against the religion, though? Forcing women to wear them is a symptom of the problem, and trying to police away the symptom will in no way damage the superstitious nonsense. If anything, I could see it as empowering the radicals, as they can now claim to be victims of repression.
I'm all for rigorously pulverizing superstition, but this law doesn't do that job.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
The "intended consequence" is to shore up political support on the right wing for Sarkozy's UMP party, following significant gains by the farther-right Front National (think France's version of the Tea Party) in March's local elections.
Indeed.