Politics Thread 5

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Christmas CrackErrkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Christmas CrackErrkal » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:23 am

The Burka thing is complicated.

One one hand, it is an oppressive thing, and goes against equality etc. IF the person wearing it is forced to by some religious group, husband etc.
However, it is also part of their culture/religion etc. and if the person wants to wear it then power to them.

I do not agree with banning it the way many of facebook etc. shout about as that is done out of racism, and fascist arse holery, however I would agree to some sort of something around it in public places etc. when the reason for it being worn is because of oppressive and old fashioned views of a religion and backwards husbands.

It is hard because the culture is the the man is in control etc. and this all falls into that so you don't want to destroy someone’s culture, but on the other hand I just don’t think it is right to allow an obressive thing whilst we are trying to break down inequality etc. within our own,

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Rex Kramer » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:29 am

There's certainly a debate to be had on the subject but at no point should that debate consider whether someone looks like a postbox or bank robber. Boris is trying to dress up his dog whistle racism in some kind of deeper societal problem and he can just strawberry float off with it.

User avatar
Vermi-Claus
Member
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Vermi-Claus » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:01 am

Now i know why there was a lot of screaming the last time i posted a letter.

User avatar
Rudolphin
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Rudolphin » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:20 am

Grumpy David wrote:
lex-man wrote:
satriales wrote:
Trelliz wrote:I can't help thinking that Boris' bizarre outburst is him practicing from Trump's playbook - just say offensive gooseberry fool and never apologise and eventually it'll become the norm.

That's exactly what it looks like to me. Unfortunately, a large portion of the country will hear what Boris said and will laugh and agree with him. He's still trying to become PM.


A surprising number of people seem to be in favour of banning the burka. Apparently people shouldn't wear religious clothing in a secular country.


It's not that surprising as it is already banned in quite a few liberal secular EU countries? Doesn't seem surprising at all that it would be a relatively mainstream opinion. We just don't seem to get a lot of news on how successful the policy has been.





Maajid Nawaz. :datass:


So, first off those tweets are nonsense. If your first line of opposition to the burka is that it 'hides women's beauty' you need to strawberry floating check your priorities. Ditto for the blanket statement on Stockholm Syndrome. Mansplaining alert right there. As mentioned, the issue is incredibly complex and those patronising tweets add nothing to either argument.

Secondly, as someone living in France (because of course this gives me omnipotence over all French political happenings) I can tell you that the banning of religious face coverings over here has not been a successful policy. It was an unpopular law enacted by an unpopular President and it's still a hugely controversial issue tinged with racism and recriminations.

Par example:

In April 2018 in the Mirail district of Toulouse police asked a woman to remove her face-covering veil so she could be identified, she refused and while being taken into the police vehicle, she started screaming. Shortly thereafter about 30 individuals assaulted the police officers by throwing objects at them. The officers responded with tear gas and stun grenades and had to use their weapons 18 times before being able to leave.[43] Later the same night there was further rioting associated with this incident in the Renerie and Bellefontaine districts of Toulouse where 11 vehicles were set afire.[43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ba ... g#Response

Burqa ban five years on - 'We created a monster'

https://www.thelocal.fr/20151012/france ... -a-monster

Five years into ban, burqa divide widens in France

https://www.dw.com/en/five-years-into-b ... a-19177275

French police make woman remove clothing on Nice beach following burkini ban

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... nice-beach

I'm always a wary of those who lean too hard on the banning side of the argument. For many, even some self confessed liberals, it amounts to little more than an excuse for racism. As a white western man, I do not believe the burka should want to be worn by anyone. But also as a white western man, if some women do chose to wear one I would not seek to deny them their choice,.

EDIT:

Karl wrote:Re: 21 Lessons: A lot of apologism for fundamentally fascistic rhetoric there. Anti-immigrationists stress that one of the most basic rights of every human collective is to defend itself against invasion, whether in the form of armies or migrants. I don't think that the comparison between migrants and marauding armies is valid. Equating migration with invasion is a hard-right viewpoint. I think replying "you are a fascist" to someone making that argument is perfectly reasonable.


Yep. I'm sorry to admit it but I stopped reading there. Anyone willing to compare refugees to an invading army is not someone who's opinion I have any interest in.

Gemini73 wrote:Yes your are a sanctimonious twat

Bloggy blog blog blog.

Night Call: a game what I worked on
User avatar
Octoroc
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Blighty

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Octoroc » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:59 am

Cultural change is something that happens gradually over time. You can't accelerate it by shouting "STOP DOING THAT" at people. Citing your knowledge of medieval history isn't going to cut the mustard either.

I don't see why burkas have to be black though and if you think about it, wouldn't we all like to have a go? Anonymity can be very empowering. Essentially it's just like being a Furry, but more practical.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by captain red dog » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:20 am

There should be no issue criticising the burka. If it was a white culture expecting women to dress like that, it would be called out for the mysogynistic practice that it clearly is. I don't believe many women at all would freely choose to wear it if not for a life time of extreme oppression and religious indoctrination.

It is a device that closes them off from the world and keeps them subjugated. The mental gymnastics people go through to defend it is absolutely baffling.

User avatar
Harry Ellis
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Harry Ellis » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:25 am

It's clearly a delicate issue. On one hand, you can say women should be free to wear whatever they like, including the burka. That's where it gets tricky though, because deep down everyone knows that at least some are forced to wear it or at best pressured into it.

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Igor
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Not telling...

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Igor » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:34 am

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT:

Karl wrote:Re: 21 Lessons: A lot of apologism for fundamentally fascistic rhetoric there. Anti-immigrationists stress that one of the most basic rights of every human collective is to defend itself against invasion, whether in the form of armies or migrants. I don't think that the comparison between migrants and marauding armies is valid. Equating migration with invasion is a hard-right viewpoint. I think replying "you are a fascist" to someone making that argument is perfectly reasonable.


Yep. I'm sorry to admit it but I stopped reading there. Anyone willing to compare refugees to an invading army is not someone who's opinion I have any interest in.


Is he not simply describing a core argument of anti-immigrationists, rather than stating that argument as his own opinion? How do you finish reading anything if you stop as soon as the writer dares describe the position of the side you already disagree with?

Having read both Sapiens and Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari is an absolutely fantastic writer so it pains me to see him dismissed as an apologist for fascism based on an excerpt.

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by lex-man » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:35 am

Grumpy David wrote:
lex-man wrote:
satriales wrote:
Trelliz wrote:I can't help thinking that Boris' bizarre outburst is him practicing from Trump's playbook - just say offensive gooseberry fool and never apologise and eventually it'll become the norm.

That's exactly what it looks like to me. Unfortunately, a large portion of the country will hear what Boris said and will laugh and agree with him. He's still trying to become PM.


A surprising number of people seem to be in favour of banning the burka. Apparently people shouldn't wear religious clothing in a secular country.


It's not that surprising as it is already banned in quite a few liberal secular EU countries? Doesn't seem surprising at all that it would be a relatively mainstream opinion. We just don't seem to get a lot of news on how successful the policy has been.





Maajid Nawaz. :datass:


We will save women from people telling them what they can and can't wear by telling them what they can and can't wear.

Also I don't like people flying the Confederate flag but I don't want to ban them from doing so.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:43 am

I don’t like the burqa and it has its origins in treating women as property.

But I also don’t like telling people what they can and can’t wear. We can’t say “women should be free to choose what they are allowed to wear!” and then also say “but not that!”.

If a woman is being forced to wear it then that should be a crime. If a woman is choosing to wear it then that should be her choice.

Banning the burqa is not going to help anybody. It will take away the choice of a woman if she wants to wear it. And those that would be forced to wear it will end up not being allowed out of the house.

I also don’t think it is the massive issue that anti-Muslim voices make it out to be. I live near a very Muslim area and you very rarely (if ever) see anybody in a full burqa. As time goes on it will end up being seen less and less as Western attitudes filter into the more conservative Muslim communities.

So no mental gymnastics or defending required. It simply comes down to whether you are happy to protect a woman’s right to choose by taking away her right to choose.

User avatar
Harry Ellis
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Harry Ellis » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:45 am

A colleague of mine once argued on FB that it should be banned because "they could be hiding a bomb in there".

True story.

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Karl
Seyana!
Seyana!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Karl » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:47 am

Igor wrote:
Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT:

Karl wrote:Re: 21 Lessons: A lot of apologism for fundamentally fascistic rhetoric there. Anti-immigrationists stress that one of the most basic rights of every human collective is to defend itself against invasion, whether in the form of armies or migrants. I don't think that the comparison between migrants and marauding armies is valid. Equating migration with invasion is a hard-right viewpoint. I think replying "you are a fascist" to someone making that argument is perfectly reasonable.


Yep. I'm sorry to admit it but I stopped reading there. Anyone willing to compare refugees to an invading army is not someone who's opinion I have any interest in.


Is he not simply describing a core argument of anti-immigrationists, rather than stating that argument as his own opinion? How do you finish reading anything if you stop as soon as the writer dares describe the position of the side you already disagree with?

Having read both Sapiens and Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari is an absolutely fantastic writer so it pains me to see him dismissed as an apologist for fascism based on an excerpt.


The core thesis of that article is that being "anti-immigration" is a legitimate viewpoint that shouldn't be dismissed by being labelled fascism. But one of his opening gambits is to describe the anti-immigration viewpoint in the terms and rhetoric of a fascist, using terms like "invasion" and then describing a scenario where only Christian migrants are accepted as that country's "right". When he talks about "a legitimate anti-immigration political position" and then defines that position in the terms of fascism, it's hard to see that as anything other than apologism for fascists.

I haven't read Harari's works, outside that article -- which I read all the way through, though I don't particularly blame Taf for voting with his time and clocking out early. I don't know his broader views. All I'm saying is that in that article he comes across as a pretty typical detached centrist intellectual: unwittingly legitimising fascism by insisting it's a valid political position we just need to debate against.

User avatar
Rudolphin
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Rudolphin » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:58 am

Igor wrote:
Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT:

Karl wrote:Re: 21 Lessons: A lot of apologism for fundamentally fascistic rhetoric there. Anti-immigrationists stress that one of the most basic rights of every human collective is to defend itself against invasion, whether in the form of armies or migrants. I don't think that the comparison between migrants and marauding armies is valid. Equating migration with invasion is a hard-right viewpoint. I think replying "you are a fascist" to someone making that argument is perfectly reasonable.


Yep. I'm sorry to admit it but I stopped reading there. Anyone willing to compare refugees to an invading army is not someone who's opinion I have any interest in.


Is he not simply describing a core argument of anti-immigrationists, rather than stating that argument as his own opinion? How do you finish reading anything if you stop as soon as the writer dares describe the position of the side you already disagree with?

Having read both Sapiens and Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari is an absolutely fantastic writer so it pains me to see him dismissed as an apologist for fascism based on an excerpt.


What Karl said, basically.

I've mentioned many times my dislike for the normalisation of so called fascist and extremist viewpoints through centrist debate and analysis. Within the first three paragraphs it becomes clear that's exactly what that article is doing, whether or not the author shares those views himself. Indeed, I have no knowledge of Harari nor his views but if he's willing to entertain a debate by insisting that the position of "refugees are similar to an invading army" bears the same weight as "refugees are not similar to an invading army" then no, I don't have time for that piece of writing as I disagree with its central tenet.

Gemini73 wrote:Yes your are a sanctimonious twat

Bloggy blog blog blog.

Night Call: a game what I worked on
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Squinty » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:09 am

I don't like the veil, but honestly, if women actually WANT to wear it, then it's not right for me to tell me them not to.

As someone has already said, you cannot expect change to just happen immediately. I have no doubt that it will eventually.

As an aside, I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear one. I've seen plenty of Muslim women wear the Hijab (I think that's what it is called), and the other one which is a full body covering excluding the face. Not too clued up on the names of these things.

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:20 am

I was in Halifax a few years ago and there was a woman making a fuss because she was being refused service for something or other unless she took it off. Customers then started getting very angry with her so in the end she left.

In certain situations, it clearly has to come off.

Image
User avatar
Octoroc
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Blighty

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Octoroc » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:24 am

Drumstick wrote:It's clearly a delicate issue. On one hand, you can say women should be free to wear whatever they like, including the burka. That's where it gets tricky though, because deep down everyone knows that at least some are forced to wear it or at best pressured into it.


Many women feel pressured to use cosmetics, shave their legs, stay slim etc. Lots of office workers are condemned to wearing shirts and ties. If you try and get into a provincial night-club wearing trainers you won't get in.

There are also denominations of christian churches that expect women to wear headscarves, but I don't see the Plymouth Brethren making the front pages.

I realise the burka has become emblematic of something bigger, but it's just clothing and it's really not all that important. It really isn't.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Preezy » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:25 am

I've often wondered that. You can't wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank so the same rule should apply to burqas. I literally know nothing about current laws though, so that may well already be the case.

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by lex-man » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:32 am

Preezy wrote:I've often wondered that. You can't wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank so the same rule should apply to burqas. I literally know nothing about current laws though, so that may well already be the case.


I think the issues is that typically somebody wearing a motorcycle helmet in a bank is there to rob the place somebody in a burqas probably isn't.

My understanding is that a burqas is to restrictive to be effective bank robbing tool.

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:38 am

I don't think it's about robbing the place, it's about seeing who is under it. They've got to be able to identify the person.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Preezy » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:39 am

Octoroc wrote:I realise the burka has become emblematic of something bigger, but it's just clothing and it's really not all that important. It really isn't.

I think were it just that very conservative Muslim woman wore an orange t-shirt, people wouldn't have an issue with it (although I don't like orange t-shirts). But the burqa is a literal barrier that stops you seeing the person's face. That makes it very difficult to view them as part of your community or society in general, as they're just these floating entities that you aren't "allowed" (or are very hesitant) to interact with. "Can I talk to someone in a burqa? Will they be offended if I look at them? Will the man they're with get aggressive if I try and talk to them?" That kind of thing probably goes through lots of peoples minds, so I get why it's a problem for lots of people. Plus as Drummy said, they could be hiding bombs in them.

Having lived in a very strict Islamic country during my childhood I'm not really fussed about people in burqas, they're not totally alien to me, but I can definitely see how people that aren't used to it would take issue.


Return to “Stuff”