Utopia Talk / Politics / Do you remember scene in Mars Attacks?

Asgard Member	Thu Aug 02 13:25:45 Where the Martians warships had speakers saying "we come in peace... we come in peace", all the while shooting lasers and killing people? Well, today Denmark banned the Burqa/burka/veil. Muslim women will be ordered by police to either go home, remove the veil, or get a heavy fine. Those against this law say it hurts democracy and western ideals. But does it? Maybe it's just the opposite? A veil represents the idea that the woman is owned by her husband, and that no other man may look at her. It's not about the woman's right to wear a religious garment, but rather the husband's "right" to rule his woman. So go ahead, you Sebs and Paramounts. Go ahead and say that democracy is being attacked. Because those warships don't come in peace. Your ultra-liberal ideals, ridiculed even in the left, that Muslim ideals should be kept in the name of democracy, are a fallacy. You cannot have multiculturalism and variety when some of the elements you want to protect are innately against multiculturalism and variety. A woman's right IS part of western ideals, but when she says she wants to wear a Burka as a right, it's not her speaking, it's her oppressive religion.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 02 13:37:04 Asgard: From a strictly women's rights perspective this is terrible. It means oppressive men now are being aided and abetted by the state in confining women to the house. From a point of view of opposing religious oppression of women this is a fucking travesty. From a general liberal point of view, as a concept this makes me uneasy. I appreciate the argument, and support banning full face covering in some situations, but not in public generally. If we can headscarves in public, should we also not ban Sikh daggers and mandatory clothes of other religion too? Freedom of religion is an important concept and I don't think we should throw that away too easily to make a point, or we achieve the thing we say we oppose.
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Aug 02 13:37:06 Or it is possible she just likes a the burka. But yeah women should only wear what men want them too.
Asgard Member	Thu Aug 02 15:13:34 Let’s assume she likes to wear a Burka. Why arrest a husband who beats his wife, when she likes it? She didn’t call the cops, their neighbors did. She’s masochistic and it’s her right, isn’t it? Why fire a man (or woman) with power and office who had sex with an employee or someone who they have power over? Even if it was consensual... and he or she likes it? Do you see where I am getting at? A woman may or may not like to wear a veil, but the fact that it exists as an established tool of power of men over women is in itself an affront to western values. Same as the fact that a man or woman of power abusing that power for sex is an affront as well. Even if the victim likes it and even initiated it. See, freedom of religion is indeed important, but so are women’s freedom. Also, your argument about women staying in the house as a consequence is not a strong one... if you walk the streets of London or any other major Muslim city like it, you’ll notice a ton of Burkas or other regular Muslim women. They do errands, they work, they do stuff to support their families. Maybe 1% will be forced by their husband to stay home instead of getting fined, but the rest of the husbands will have to accept their bitter fate and let their women bring them and their family the money they need to survive.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 02 15:45:34 Asgard: The problem is this policy doesn't give women more freedom. It takes it away by intent, and exacerbates the problems these women have by forcing them to confront potentially abusive relations, alienate themselves from their community, or remain within the house.
Paramount Member	Thu Aug 02 15:55:19 So now Denmark is dictating what women can wear. If it is not Muslim men dictating what women can and can not wear, then it is Denmark doing it. Shouldn't women have the right to decide for themselves what they want to wear? "freedom of religion is indeed important, but so are women’s freedom." Women's freedom is obviously not as important when you dictate laws on what clothing they are allowed to wear. Look, some men in the West may oppress and/or beat their wifes. Because of jealousy or whatnot they may tell their wifes or girlfriends to not go out and enjoy themselves with their girlfriends. So, should Denmark also ban nightclubs for women? Because if Denmark ban women from nightclubs then the men can't oppress or beat the women anymore to stop them from going there. "Go ahead and say that democracy is being attacked. Because those warships don't come in peace." So Muslim women are warships?
Asgard Member	Fri Aug 03 01:29:29 Yes that’s obviously what I meant
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 03 01:49:50 "if you walk the streets of London or any other major Muslim city like it" lol
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 03:49:31 I can totally buy banning face covering for safety issues and that it just so severely undermines an open society and runs opposite of the culture. We meet, we face each other we are open. There is something innantely wierd about not seeing another persons faith. Reflected in how extremely rare burkas are among muslims. I can’t say the same about covering your hair, even though I wish it would go away. That is can of worms as to where to draw the line, you can’t there are fashionable head scarfes, secular and everything. You have to keep in mind that the Danes have now banned fake beards as well. There is a cost to be principled about these things.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 03:51:43 "if you walk the streets of London or any other major Muslim city like it" +1 lol
Paramount Member	Fri Aug 03 04:34:43 ”how extremely rare burkas are among muslims.” If it so rare then it is hard to see what the problem is that this particular garment have to be banned by law. But I think that wearing a burka looks weird and I don’t think it fits in our societies. So is fake beard banned in Denmark? Is a real beard also banned? I mean a real beard looks more authentic so it should be banned, if beards are a threat to danish national security.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 05:10:48 Nim: Ok, but then specifically ban covering the face - an apply it to couriers who don't remove their helmets when off their bikes etc. etc.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 05:36:48 A law banning face covering in public is a law against: Wedding Veils Halloween Sports Mascots and Disneyland Bicycle Couriers that do not remove their helmets when off their vehicle People wearing too large dark glasses By the time you do this, it very much starts to look like you are quite happy for people to cover their faces other than Muslims. And a law that straight out focuses on Muslim women wearing burkas end up having to chose between staying at home or inter familial and intra community conflict doesn't seem helpful to woman's rights.
Asgard Member	Fri Aug 03 08:07:29 "Wedding Veils" - confined to churches anyway "Halloween" - confined to one specific day 'Sports Mascots and Disneyland" - confined to an occasion, and admitting a person inside is anyway regulated by buying a ticket to the venue (same for DisneyLand) "Bicycle Couriers that do not remove their helmets when off their vehicle " - good, the only reason to have a helmet on when off a bike is for bank robberies anyway. "People wearing too large dark glasses " - good, it's ugly. "And a law that straight out focuses on Muslim women wearing burkas end up having to chose between staying at home or inter familial and intra community conflict doesn't seem helpful to woman's rights. " Why just Muslims? It's happening here in Israel too. Extremist Ultra Orthodox women have picked up the habit and also wear Burkas... I mean, their husbands picked up the habit. Don't worry, it will slowly creep into christians as well. Your right to wear what you want when your husbands wants it, will be preserved no matter what religion your in. By the way... the whole Burka thing, is not really a Muslim thing. It's pretty new habit (150-200 years or so), that is absolutely not a part of Muslim scripture.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 08:30:21 Asgard Heh not so slowly, feminists are arguing for more segregation and man free zones already, skip the burka complete segregation. They are having a festival in Sweden with a special "pasture" (that is what they called it in Swedish) for the women to leave their men while they are at the festival :) As metoo showed a lot of these feminist types hang around with serial rapists, so it is somewhat understandable.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 11:44:00 Asgard: Right, so if you are willing to make exceptions on those grounds, why not for religious grounds? And is the issue the assumption of compulsion (should we then ban other outward religious compulsions, e.g. for hassidic Jews, etc.) - or is it the covering of the face. Philopshically, this seems weak given - not withstanding your attempts to assert the others are limited - there has been *no* concern on face covering in those instances at all. It's actually quite hard to claim there is an established norm *against* face covering which this law is protecting. And in practice the law seems to me to endanger and confine women's options not expand them. There are better ways to tackle this issue. I grant you it's a thorny issue. I don't like the burka or what it represents - the idea so eloquently put in another thread by another poster - that women are provocative sexual beings whose appearance can send the wrong signal such that it must be controlled if their power is not to influence men. It's insulting both to men and women alike. But so is regulating dress codes, so is a law that it's clearly targeting a particular cultural group, and so is a law that criminalises or directly penalises the supposed victim rather than the oppressor. To the extent that the burka is problematic, this looks a solution that is worse than the problem. Not least as it suggests the dominant culture should be able to regulate the behaviour of minorities on matters as trivial as their clothing in order to drive conformity. Which for me is a deeply anti democratic and illiberal. The burka is an issue because of what we think it implies about the specific power dynamics of the individual and their immediate relations. Banning the burka is really only treating the symptoms, hence the issue here. How about more positive steps to empower women here rather than criminalising them for behaviour which, according to the premise on which you justify this law, they have limited control over?
Dukhat Member	Fri Aug 03 12:17:53 Ban Burkas. Cultural tolerance only goes so far. We shouldn't be enabling patriarchy and sexism.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 12:50:33 Apparently seb is completely fucking clueless as to how the sexed up culture is detrimental to girls and their mental well being. He does not understand how using sex appeal and looks (things that diminish rapidly after 25) to gain power and status can be harmful for girls, specially for the vast majority who never get anywhere. Saying that there are problems inherent in this culture ”one step from inventing the burka”. :) Now shudder at the thought that this is the father of two girls. The product of one of the best schools in the world! Maybe dukhat can help you find a college that teaches empathy and like how to be human?
smart dude Member	Fri Aug 03 12:57:52 So Seb supports burqas and niqabs because he thinks allowing Muslim men to parade their "property" in public is a better alternative than forcing them to stay at home. I get the point, I guess. But that's a shitty pair of alternatives.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 16:11:25 Apparently nim thinks wearing lipstick gains power and status. Is he for banning hair dye for men too? Artificially gaining power and status? Stop being ridiculous. Dukhat: End patriarchy by, er, criminalizing and fining it's victims? Are you sure we've thought this one through? The Danish law seems very much on line with "liberate women from prostitution by criminalizing prostitutes". Whatever the intent, it's unlikely to actually help. Smart Dude: Being opposed to criminising and fining those who (and whom we suspect may be forced to ) wear burkas is not the same as supporting burkas.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 16:14:23 Nim is actually citing incel lines now. Pathetic.
Paramount Member	Fri Aug 03 18:15:11 A 28-year-old woman wearing a niqab on Friday became the first person in Denmark to be fined for violating a new controversial law banning full-face Islamic veils in public places, media reported. Police were called to a shopping centre in Horsholm, in the northeastern region of Nordsjaelland, where the woman had become involved in a scuffle with another woman who had tried to tear her niqab off, police duty officer David Borchersen told the Ritzau news agency. "During the fight her niqab came off, but by the time we arrived she had put it back on again," Borchersen said. Police took a photograph of the woman wearing the niqab, and obtained security camera footage from the shopping centre of the incident. The woman was informed she would receive a fine of 1,000 kroner ($156, 134 euros) in the post, and was told to either remove her veil or leave the public space. "She chose the latter," Borchersen said. http://afp.omni.se/944ea96a-f253-4173-b9b6-9908563462db Sounds nice. Maybe citizens can attack muslim women now, scuffle with them and rip off their clothes.
Rugian Member	Fri Aug 03 18:17:57 "where the woman had become involved in a scuffle with another woman who had tried to tear her niqab off" Look, I hate sand niggers as much as anyone...but who would actually do this?
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 19:03:21 People who don't like muslims and now feel they have a legal right to do something about them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 04 03:40:59 Seb We consistently treat people we find attractive better, more charitable etc, at interviews on the train and life. Men and women, but looks ranks high for men than women, it is important for women too, just not as important. There asymmetri. Yes being good looking contains power an provides status, this may be shocking new information for a lizard person like you. And famously, power corrupts, the race for power has a high attrition rates. Tell me if things are going to fast for you. Have you like tried to pretend you are interested in your girls and wife and talk to them instead of white knighting on the internet? Too busy creating value? Priorities bro. Now go, hit me with more incel/burka references, lizard. This level of ignorance about women’s lives, from someone who lives with THREE of them, is like the scene in the 40 year old virgin, when he describes tits as ”bags of sand”. You don’t know any women, do you? You are the incel here. It all makes sense.
Paramount Member	Sat Aug 04 04:45:02 ”We consistently treat people we find attractive better” And? Are you saying people treat muslim women bad because they don’t look good?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 04 05:18:57 Paramount, you lack some background, go read the walking is racist thread, if you want to waste your saturday. This has nothing to do with muslim women and burkas, it is about all women, the way they dress, the mixed signals and the mental unhealth it causes young women trying to use looks as bargaining chip for status. Problems associated with this culture. Pointing this out for feminist is like telling them women should wear a burkas. Because that is the size of their brains. You know these things, female sexuality is worth money, women will buy into it and men will pay to watch it, jerk off to it or fuck it. There are problems in this system that plays a tune on the base instincts of our biology. Those urges can become mal-adaptive in the modern world, much like your urge to eat suger can get you obese in the modern world with easy access to suger. Some people can’t deal with reality because for a couple decades they have been brain washed into thinking nothing women do with their bodies and sexuality can ever be problematic. So when you tell them, they think they have woken up in 16th century and they start freaking the fuck out. Waaaaaaa you want to burka women! Waaaa! Your usual sebsplaining.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 04 05:32:52 >>Is he for banning hair dye for men too? Artificially gaining power and status?<< Unlike you I have a very steep hill to climb to reach ban mountain, I am for freedom ’til it hurts or even kills you, your life your choice. My angel is awareness (knowledge), which judging by your freak out, is desperetly needed. I fear for your girls bro, really. Only Jergul has shown such poor understanding on this subject. Another father of only girls. Which woke men wear as a badge of merit for the feminist credentials. And usually experience indeed can help increase capacity for understanding of others, but some people manage to walk clueless through their entire lives despite all the opportunities for progress.
Paramount Member	Sat Aug 04 05:45:43 ”Paramount, you lack some background, go read the walking is racist thread, if you want to waste your saturday.” Nah, I don’t have the time. I’m going to a theater in a while to watch a show. Not a cinema theater, but a real theater with real people on da stage. Haven’t been to one of those since I was like 10 or 11. ”Some people can’t deal with reality because for a couple decades they have been brain washed into thinking nothing women do with their bodies and sexuality can ever be problematic.” Well, young women have been told that they are allowed to do anything with their bodies, dress any way they want, and act any way they want, because it is their right. Well, it is. And then that no one has the right to grope them, touch them or anything like that. Which is also true. A woman should be able to dress anyway she wants without anyone going to hurt her because the way she dress. But as to anything else – how you dress, what you do, where you go and how you act always has some kind of consequence. Sometimes the consequences may be positive – like they meet their love of their life, other times people might just be very friendly, and sometimes the consequences are really negative. ”So when you tell them, they think they have woken up in 16th century and they start freaking the fuck out. Waaaaaaa you want to burka women! Waaaa!” I think most women above 25 understands this, but what they are trying to say (what I think) is that they really wants a perfect world where everyone is a gentleman and nothing bad ever happens. Yes, women has their rights and they should be able to do what they want with their bodies. But the perfect world is not going to happen.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 04 06:38:29 Everyone should make their decision with as much facts as possible, that is the underlying point we agree on I hope. Some of those facts are uncomfortable and hard to swallow/accept. The world is not perfect as you say, and it wont get better by pretending to not see the problems as they are. And I do not believe, that most over 25 get it, even if, by then you have made or not made certain choices. I think breaking from the herd is actually a rare and difficult thing. Beauty is a huge industry and especially for women over 25, because this where it starts to decline and you start to put money on surgery and more make up. So even if you get it, it will be a rough transition. You have surrounded yourself with certain people (friends) who share your intrests, put alot of effort into certain things and not other. People change, yes, but not easily and far from everyone. And like I said, this is not solely about men not behaving, Beauty among women is an actual thing, among women, themselves, as a way to compete. ”because it is their right.” ”You can drive your car with your feet if you wanted to, doesn’t make it a good fucking idea.” - Chris Rock ;)
Nekran Member	Sat Aug 04 06:52:03 "Unlike you I have a very steep hill to climb to reach ban mountain, I am for freedom ’til it hurts or even kills you, your life your choice. My angel is awareness (knowledge)" So if I understand you correctly, you actually agree 100% that people should be able to look however they like (make-up, high heels, hair dye, whatnot...) and not be harassed for it? You just want people to be aware that things they do indeed have consequences, even if they are in their right? Because if that is the case, I don't think anyone at all disagrees. It tends to often sound way more like you are defending agressors and blaming victims when you say things like "Some people can’t deal with reality because for a couple decades they have been brain washed into thinking nothing women do with their bodies and sexuality can ever be problematic". Because there is a huge difference between something having unintended consequences that you think shouldn't exist and that something being the actual problem. Which one is it? Is the negative reaction to the behavior the problem or is the behavior itself the problem? You seem to be wanting to ride both waves. Claiming you are pro freedom and saying people should be able to do with their bodies and appearance whatever they like, but then when someone is harassed or violated over it, you seem to say "well that's what you get for using your freedom like you did". I feel like those two views are very much incompatible. I understand telling people they should be aware of possible terrible and udneserved consequences of their actions, but there is a far cry between that and considering the behavior itself problematic.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 04 07:08:44 Nim: Seriously, yes, you are using the same stupid goddamn arguments the Incels use: Attractive people have status, and thus power, those that seek to do things that increase their attractiveness are unfairly increasing their status. To the extent that looks are a significant fraction of overall status and power in society, which I suspect is low, any policy solution is going to be frankly, bonkers. This is at best the realm of curio, not a serious contribution to policy formulation. And any policy inspired by this should still be fairly applied. Tall men should be forced to stoop? And anyone wearing soles that are too thick should be punished for artificially enhancing their status? Come on, this is proper Harrison Burgeron territory. This is a classic approach of your typical top down thinking where a theory is used to construct a chain of logic which you demand be treated seriously despite little supporting evidence and is contentious. This is also a very strong parallel to the arguments for the burka: that men cannot help but be influenced by a woman's looks - and it is therefore an obligation on the woman to disguise herself. It's properly bonkers and the stuff of fringe lunatics. If you want to tackle body image issues, I suggest the best place to start is not makeup, but pornography (where the bulk of boy's unrealistic expectations form, and the aesthetics that real woman therefore chase after in attempting to attract boys' attention) and sexualised advertising. To the extent that women "have power", it is due to the failure of some men to even attempt to transcend their base instinct, which is what they should do before we start putting limits on others freedoms. Tackle the demand side you degenerate fucktard.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 04 07:33:22 Nekran I think you did a fair description and even touched on this being a difficult subject. You kind did not here. "you seem to say "well that's what you get for using your freedom like you did"." I have never said or insinuated anything like this. I am content just reaching a place, where this discussion can be had, without these assumptions. There are many shades between the false dichotomy.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 04 07:41:35 Nim: "Unlike you I have a very steep hill to climb to reach ban mountain" Obviously not that steep... "I can totally buy banning face covering for safety issues and that it just so severely undermines an open society and runs opposite of the culture."
Asgard Member	Sat Aug 04 09:33:41 Seb, let's meet at the middle ground, ok? How about Denmark starts forcing veils... on Men? Let's see how long the Muslims take it before heading back to their desert.
Nekran Member	Sun Aug 05 02:19:55 "I am content just reaching a place, where this discussion can be had, without these assumptions. There are many shades between the false dichotomy." These shades are very hard to put into policy though. When it comes to policy, especially in law, I feel like the side of being free to look however you like is obviously the winning side. In offices and such, where companies can set policy, I'd say you have a bit more leeway. I'd still be sitting on the same extreme end of it myself though... I'm no fan of dress codes in general.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 05 04:56:22 Asgard: See, when you put it like that it becomes blatantly obvious you are just focusing on a group by proxy. How about we meet in the middle by: Ensuring properly funded shelters for women are easily accessible for Muslim women: e.g. in easy geographic reach, cater for any other things that might be an issue (e.g. provide halal food options, have interpreters). Fund and promote feminist Muslim groups. Ensure that there are socialising routes for doctrinaire Muslim women to be exposed to western society (e.g. women's only hours at gyms and pools, as such womens families may not allow them to be exposed to westerners under other circumstances). Socialisation and integration require creating off ramps from orthodox cultures. What the Danish ban does is increase those barriers and penalise the people that the bill identified as victims!
Paramount Member	Sun Aug 05 08:34:02 "the Danes have now banned fake beards as well." It just came to my mind that the Danes has banned Santa Claus.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 05 08:59:46 paramount: It's important to remember that fake beards are against Danish culture. We meet each other face to face, openly etc.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: