magnet
2041
In the West, anyone who wants to end a marriage can do so without assistance. True, it is uncomfortable and often means severing ties with your friends and community. But that’s true of anyone contemplating divorce, not just Muslims.
I’m surprised that you seem to believe that Muslims need special assistance from the state to deal with their feelings. The very first example you gave was of a Muslim immigrant who “felt unsafe” around suspected ISIS supporters, not one who was actually attacked.
How is that any different from students who demand “safe spaces” for their daily activities? Isn’t your ongoing war against academia premised on the idea that one does not have the right to avoid discomfort?
When refugee Yazidis, Assyrians, Chaldeans and other Syrian/Iraqi non Sunni sects and religions talk about “unsafe” they aren’t talking about hurt feelings. They are talking about the continuation of sectarian violence and oppression which lead them to flee in the first place and is now unrecognised by European authorities as it breaks the victim narrative they’ve bound to the Sunni majority.
And tbh, your use of “Muslim” sums up the issues that identity politics have brought to this issue. There is no Muslim identity.
magnet
2043
Nobody has a monopoly on violence and oppression. Consequently, nobody is completely free from the risk of violence.
The state has principled ways to approach this problem, which try to respect the rights of all. Why do authorities need to take exceptional methods here but not in gang-ridden ghettos of Marseille?
The purpose of offering asylum is not to solve every problem a refugee faces.
And tbh, your use of “Muslim” sums up the issues that identity politics have brought to this issue. There is no Muslim identity.
My use?
I said the Muslim identity doesn’t exist, and the pedestalling of this mythical singular entity is part of the problem.
Oh look, its escaped college and social media, and its now sitting in your legislation. Volokh can explain it better than I can.
You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.
We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie.
Timex
2046
I doubt that you would actually be fined for such a thing, in that I don’t think it would actually hold up in court.
If it were though, I would force people to call me Supreme Commander.
ShivaX
2047
Yeah that wouldn’t make it past a local justice, much less any court of significance.
Teiman
2048
People don’t understand laws.
Laws don’t apply to where it make sense, or where is fair. Laws are fairly often abused by evil people against good people.
You don’t make unjust bad laws, because then you driven the whole machine of the system against good people.
People that say “This bad laws will not be apply wrong” is always naive. Always.
Maybe not in this thread. But everywhere else.
I wish the title of this thread was more apt, it is a pain to hunt down on the rare times i ‘need’ it!
Anyway I read this article and thought of this thread (even if it burns like salt on a slug!):
‘Reclaim the Internet research reveals huge scale of social media misogyny’:
The usual Guardian lies, who have been running their #webwewant campaign against freedom of speech and expression for a while now. Quite how they can still be using CP Scotts “facts are sacred” line on their paper is bare-faced cheek of the highest order.
Here’s how the Guardian skewed that story.
Half of all misogynistic tweets posted on Twitter come from women, a study suggests.
Yes, abuse is rife, but no, its not misogyny. Its people abusing people.
This flies in the face of their campaign that wealthy middle class white women are the most abused identity on the planet, so they engineer the entire story to miss out what is a substantial piece of data.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/open-door-column-note-to-readers
Perhaps they should commission “fact checkers” on all their journalists, seeing they buried this admission huge numbers of stories are just made up.
Another good example of the type of biased clickbait that Viner is pushing out these days.
Each and every one of us on this forum have known and loved orcs all our lives. How many of us have ever associated orcs with non-whites? At any point? This entire piece is echoes the worst of NatSoc propaganda albeit from the other perspective. White regressives pushing divisive race baiting agitprop for revenue and ideological purposes, and entirely at the expense of non-whites as this ideology is fuelling a far right expansion like never before.
The orc-whiteness dichotomy isn’t a new idea. I recall discussion around it at least as far back as the Uruk’hai in the LoTR films, and I daresay writers have been toying with the concept for ages before that.
Even Blizzard tacitly acknowledged it in Warcraft when they ret-conned the Orcs from being bloodthirsty animals to more of a “noble savage” that were corrupted by the Draenei.
Now, I think there are probably plenty of bad things to say about the Warcraft movie without a ham-handed appeal to racism. But it’s not at all new.
The racial stuff in fantasy is all Tolkien; the Elves are special and the men corrupt because they have or do not have magic blood ancestors. Especially clear from the Silmarillion is this idea of slowly corrupting and degrading the races, and that things were better and ‘purer’ in the past. Orks are just Elves horribly corrupted by evil (something the movies got right); Numenorian me were half men half elves that fell to arrogance because…well basically because Tolkien wanted an Arlantis analogue. Ordinary people are slobs and only a rare few with magical old blood have the poise, wisdom and courage to lead them. And the of course all the Elves run far away to the country club at the end of the Old Times and hate even interacting with men at all.
I should say I don’t think this was Tolkien being an ass but just reflecting what passed for ‘common sense’ in his time. Certainly racial theories and the manifest superiority of the European Peoples were foremost on theorists’ minds.
Since forever? Orks have always been an analogue for a debased and primitive people with no redeeming social values who exist only to be slaughtered. They’re not ALWAYS indigenous tribesmen, but often enough. Others have pointed out the literature and film stuff, but games follows a similar trajectory.
The Games Workshop orks were transparently modeled after “football hooligans” to start with, but in at least one case they were a tongue-in-cheek take on the Bloods and the Crips in the game “Gorkamorka”… a game which featured an even more debased group called “Diggas” just in case you didn’t get the joke the first time.
To their credit, when Blizzard wholesale stole the aesthetic of GW’s orks, they humanized them and removed the very British class-satire stuff… but they pretty much Africanized them by the WoW era – Zulu-style dress, African tribe structure, savanna or Nile terrain for their homelands, Maasai-style huts and Moroccan-style buildings.
At least the orks got some variety… trolls were just Jamaican.
I never thought about the whole privilege exercise being a secular ritual of confession.
magnet
2055
Brutal gang rape in Brazil a few days ago. I’m sure you already heard, it’s all over the news.
When are we going to do something about those Christians?
Is this intended as a joke? The ability of liberals to draw laughably false equivalencies makes this a real question.
In other news: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/asia/pakistan-women-light-beating/
Oghier
2057
I think you’ll have a hard time showing that this attack was encouraged by their reading of the Bible, or in any way connected to religion at all. So I don’t understand how your post relates to the discussion.
And it seems like everyone is taking this event very seriously and calling for action, so it’s not like any one is getting a free pass on it due to their religion or anything.
I’ve seen it a few times around here, and the use of the term ‘regressive’ or ‘regressive left’ always cracks me up. Like when people type micro$oft. Ooh. That’s a wicked burn, bro. I just picture you as a fedora-wearing neckbeard, and discount everything else you wrote.
Filtering out opposing opinions. Classic regressive behavior.
