537
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
537 points (97.2% liked)
World News
39153 readers
2907 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It's like banning kimono or sari.
If it's just an outfit and not religious clothes than there should be no problem, right?
It’s still targeting ethnicities. There’s no denying that these bans have a racial component to it.
I'd say it's cultural rather than racial. Putting one culture above others is not the same as putting one race above others.
Especially since one culture refuses to assimilate when they migrate to a new country. Yeah I'm an American, but if I moved to France or Japan I wouldn't try to change the local culture, I'd try to fit in. If I visited Saudi Arabia, not that they'd let me, my pasty white ass is putting on a turban and some robes so that I don't die of sun exposure. I'd be the first person in history to get a 4th degree sunburn. I'm not gonna wander around in short pants, and flip flops bare chested the way I could here in SoCal.
oh no it's the assimilation police, dictating how and when people give up their culture!
Yeah, no.
If someone comes to my country I'd expect them to adapt.
No homophobic abuse, no sexist abuse, no telling women what they can and can't do.
Cultures aren't all equal. If your culture is built on bigotry, I have zero respect for it. According to some cultures, I should be stoned to death for being a bisexual man. Fuck those cultures.
What the heck country are you living in where those aren't already part of the culture?
What makes you think that because it goes on in some parts of a country that it defines all people in that land and from that land?
Check your own fucking privilege, or better yet, your bias. You make broad generalizations about people that you literally haven't ever spoken to.
Obviously bigots exist everywhere, but you have your head in the sand if you don't think some cultures are far worse than others.
If you go to a country in the middle east, and are openly gay, there's a good chance the state will murder you. That's not hyperbole. That's a statement of fact.
Personally, I don't find that tolerable.
When did I ever generalise a whole group of people? I'm not in the slightest. I recently helped organise the wedding of my friend with the wife's father - he (and his daughter) are Muslim and he's one of the most wonderful, warm-hearted, welcoming, generous people I've ever met.
Guess what? He fucking hates a lot of islamic culture and was happier about his daughter marrying a non-muslim. Because he knows that most Muslims unfortunately aren't as progressive as he is.
Over 50% of Muslims in the UK think being gay should be illegal. If you genuinely don't think that's a cultural issue at play then you're crazy, and you're just letting people off with homophobia.
Again. You are not the one who risks death by being yourself. Check your fucking privilege.
While you're debating the finer points of whether it's moral to call out homophobia if the perpetrator of it is Muslim (spoiler - it is, and nobody gets in a huff about saying Catholics or Russian orthodox often hold homophobic views, leading me to believe that you're actually being racist), I'm here in the real world, where I know that some cultures unfortunately have a huge amount of people that want to see me harmed.
Those cultures are not compatible with a free and progressive society.
If they want to be accepted they need to change. And I have zero obligation to be welcoming of them until they do. They want me dead. Get to fuck with that "turn the other cheek" crap. If a culture calls for my destruction, that's not a culture that I'm going to like.
If you go to someone's country which does have anti LGBT laws, are you going to "adapt"?
We can stand against bigotry in other could cultures without creating a blanket ban against those cultures.
I'd have to, otherwise I'd be killed. Stop for a second and think about that. I'd be murdered by the state.
Obviously I wouldn't set foot in any of those shitholes though.
Letting those hateful cultures and attitudes be accepted isn't standing against bigotry.
Tolerating intolerance will just lead to intolerance gaining foothold and then your society won't be a tolerant one at all.
There are cities and towns I can't be myself in now because I fear for my safety, and I'm in a first world, progressive country.
It's all well and good just telling me to be warm and accepting to people with homophobic, misogynistic, backwards beliefs, but they want me dead.
Check your damn privilege, you're not the one who risks their safety when being around these people.
I'm in a similar boat in a lot of these countries. I have Indian heritage, and at least in Pakistan that could go very, very poorly for me. But I don't think we should ban any traditionally Pakistani clothing. I don't shun all Pakistani people because I would be unsafe in their country. And because of that, I've made friends who are Pakistani who also find that hatred ridiculous.
Now, I'm not telling you to go into a mosque and try to make friends with people after announcing you're bi, just like I wouldn't tell you to do that in a church or cathedral or any gathering of Republicans. That's the thing -- this isn't exclusive to Islamic extremism. I see no reason then to judge them more harshly than I would any other homophobes, and I have no reason to assume they're all bigots, just like I don't assume all Christians or white people are. And it is very notable that the French law has an exception that lets small crosses still be worn, which is the majority of Christian expression, but no such exception exists for the majority of Islamic expression.
I made my initial point poorly, which is that it's wrong to force people to adapt to your culture, no matter where in the world you are. You can still be completely intolerant of their bigoted beliefs and make it clear those are unacceptable and cross the line, but not restrict someone's self expression because they share a religion with bigoted idiots. France should be outright outlawing churches if we're going to target association by religion/culture, not granting exceptions that disproportionately benefit them.
I'm sincerely sorry if my comment came across as "respect the people who want to kill you", that's completely my fault and I made my point very poorly. I hold no respect for racists, and I don't expect anybody to respect their bigots. All bigotry needs to be chased out and ostracized from society.
Change isn't going to come from treating everyone of a religion or culture as bigots, and killing every bigot isn't a solution either. If we want to eliminate bigotry, it's going to come from people rejecting the bigotry of others in their religion/culture and making friends with them. And that's only possible if we take a harsh stance against bigotry, and only bigotry. Nothing by association.
Again, sorry about my very poor wording.
I didn't say I'm accepting of other bigots. I'm not. At all.
I'm intolerant of intolerance and cultures built on intolerance.
Yeah. When you decide to join another culture, you don't force yours on them. If your culture was so shitty that you had to flee to a different country, then maybe it was a shitty culture that shouldn't be preserved
The majority of these people aren't fleeing the culture, they're fleeing the regimes. Wearing clothing that you wore your whole life isn't "forcing" it on anyone, you are just being yourself. Would you tolerate a mostly-white school banning dashikis? What if the white principal said "Well the kid wearing it is getting bullied we're trying to protect him!" Do you see how fucking backwards that is?
How does the style of clothes you're wearing force anything on anyone? It's cool if you want to embrace the new culture, but you wouldn't be hurting anyone if you didn't. Besides, it's not like you have to choose one or the other; assimilating doesn't have to mean you give up everything pertaining to the culture you lived in before.
Side note -- shitty culture is far from the only reason for people to move. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing it's not at the top of the list either, lol.
Kids are bullies. That's one point of school uniforms. It takes away a potential bullying target
And?
They outlawed wearing these clothes in schools. I gave you a good reason to have kids wearing the same thing. You're being obtuse.
Context: you made two comments about how people who move to new countries should be expected to assimilate. If you're talking about the original post, you're in the wrong thread lol. Your reply had nothing to do with my comment, and I never said that I disagree with the law. Have a good day.
Context: you're totally incapable of actually recognizing context and are the typical bad faith arguing sealion, and think you made a point, when you just defended cultures that can't be defended because they can't manage to provide a culture that doesn't create millions of refugees. You're a shill that sucks imperialist cock and you don't have any clue on how to create a society, just ideas on how to tear one down.
It's pretty simple. Give up your culture for another if the other is superior. If your culture is bigoted, for whatever reason, religious or not, give it up.
self-report
I know what you assume, but lets ignore that, it's nonsense anyways, stay with the point. You don't think a progressive culture is to be prefered over one that is bigoted?
Splitting hairs. It's still bigotry. Just because it's bigotry towards something real rather than something we pretend is real doesn't really change much.
It is not. It's targeting religious signs. If your ethnicity can't live with the same laws as others than it isn't not you being ostracized, it's you being dick by forcing everyone to follow your dogmas.
Not everyone who wears an abaya is religious or Muslim. And France doesn’t target religious signs equally, which is why the 2004 law banned hijab but allowed crosses.
And if you’re mad that others have to somehow “cater to your dogmas,” someone should tell the French who visit Algeria and other middle eastern countries and demand wine and pork.
It allowed crosses and other religious symbols, such as the islamic moon and star so long as they were hidden by clothing
A hijab isn't hidden by clothing, it is the clothing.
So are turbans. Sikhs fought and died to protect france during world war 2, only for their children to be told they must now hide their religion and conform.
This is a badly written law and France is in the wrong here with their unique interpretation of laicite different than every other country’s secularism. As Thomas Jefferson said, other people’s beliefs and expressions “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Having died in ww2 should not give you full freedom to force your religion on your children
The fact that you blanket assume everyone forces their religion on their children is telling. Furthermore, the French government pressures ADULTS into taking off their religious apparel, so that debunks your argument. That’s not freedom, and it makes France no freer than Iran or Uzbekistan.
The fact that you blanket assume kids are going to spontaneously start wearing turbans withour their parents having anything to do with it is telling.
It debunks my argument about schoolchildren that similar rules exist for adults (when working in the government)?
If you think having to take off your religious uniform when you're representing the government is the comparable to state oppression in Iran or Uzbekistan, I get a feeling you don't know too much about life in those countries
You don’t know any Sikhs then. Talk to a few and get back to me. They proudly wear turbans because it’s part of their religion to break down social class barriers and their adornments are meant to symbolize their desire to help fellow man. Sikh kids WANT to wear it as a sign of maturity in their faith, not because anyone is pressuring them into dressing that way. And you want to hold them back from this?
Muslims and Arabs have similar ideas; men grow facial hair both to show manhood and to imitate their beloved prophets. Should France ban beards like China does against its Uighurs? Where does this oppression end, in the name of France’s phony “freedom”?
As soon as it becomes apparent certain clothes or even hairstyles are forced on people to show they are part of a group, a ban can be discussed. Especially when they are forced on young children.
Every fundamentalist will use the same argument as you do: that these children merely want to express their religious feelings. Sadly, you can't open that door to those that won't force it on their children, to protect those of those who will.
I'm sure a righteous god won't think wearing a uniform is all that important in showing your love.
It’s not about a uniform. Every religion has a defining trait, and for Islam it’s modesty. Muslim men and women often cover their hair or don’t wear shorts, etc. For some reason this angers the French far right, who have discussed things like banning wearing longsleeves on beaches in order to stick it to Muslims. For example, there was an actual debate among French politicians to ban Muslim women from wearing wetsuits on French beaches because somehow this offended French sensibilities. You don’t find that intrusion ridiculous?
Sadly, the ones that would want to wear it to be modest will have to find another way to do that, as there are too many fundamentalists forcing people to wear it as a religious symbol. Protecting the oppressed takes precedence here, especially given the scale
Wanna make Christians switch to something other than a cross too while you’re at it? Because Christian terrorists wear crosses according to your logic. The state shouldn’t be interfering in religions or deciding what is acceptable in the faith or not. Don’t you see how dangerous that is to not separate religion and government in Europe?
Christian terrorists could be wearing batman underwear, I don't really think that's relevant here
Plenty of religious people fought and died in WW2. That doesn't mean they get the right to make religious displays in state schools.
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I view people covering their hair (of either gender) as in keeping with the tenets of their faith and as part of their relationship with God, and you view this good intention as some effort to show off to other people around you. Get over yourself; the state taking this right away is no different than 20th century dictators who force men to shave or ban religious symbols that the ruling class dislikes.
K
So you're saying the law is completely biased, since the exception fits how Christians commonly display their religion? How convenient.
That's not completely biased in the slightest.
Man, we are in the discussion where literally first post saying that French government preventing people from wearing crosses. What is the point of your argument, if you ignore information given to you by others?
If a female goes to Saudi Arabia, she is forced to obey the laws of Saudi Arabia and cover parts of the body. If a female goes to France, why is it your problem that people should obey the laws of the France?
You are insane.
The first post incorrectly repeated the talking point that crosses are also banned. That’s misleading. They banned “large” crosses and the 2004 law explicitly allowed “small” crosses, but made no similar exceptions for minority religions in France.
You can’t have it both ways; either human rights apply worldwide or they don’t. If you believe that both Saudi and France have the right to take away rights for women, you’re the insane one not me.
Wear small abaya if you want to, dude. I just told ya that people should follow the laws of the country. I didn't even gave you my opinion on it.
Will you advocate for France banning all crosses henceforth then?
Probably yes, but actually if they can be seen. After all it is about signs, things that can be seen. Now, please, don't message me about this topic anymore.
No problem meaning they shouldn't care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn't care in the first place?
If it wasn't religious sign, French government wouldn't care about it