Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

If you think that after a post which's latter half literally focuses on women of Muslim origin wanting to escape Muslim oppression then you are seeing what you want to see.

And you're literally using bog standard supremacist and imperialist (hell, among others) rhetoric, heh. "Protect the women from the men" is straight up intentional strategy used by groups you were decrying (and yes, you gave a single throwaway mention of men in that second bit, which is also entirely normal for the practice). It may not have been intentional, but if you're talking useful idiot that is a blatant example thereof, which is why it was bloody mind-boggling to see you do it while accusing others of being the same.

Oddly enough, it's actually pretty relevant to US politics at the moment, too. Some of the shit that's resurgent with trump coming about are ones that cheerfully indulge in that particular vein of crap.

[Sheb]

It's actually more cultural than religious (at least, originally).  It's still BDSM, and should be treated like any other public display of kinkiness (or sexual slavery).  Not forbidden, but not accepted as normal (or for the latter, help should be offered).

Well, to be entirely fair it's not just women. Men are also supposed to dress modestly, which is why conservatives muslims men won't go around in shorts or tight clothes.

[Lord Shonus]

E: Though to be clear, the devil's in the details and exceptions more than commonalities. Only problem there is we legislated various degrees of acceptance or protection for a lot of those exceptions long before muslim was a word most of the population even really knew the basic nature of. Harping on a lot of them (if not all) kinda' falls flat when stuff like 14 year old marriages and crap were legalized for christian denominations.

Just read this, and that reminds me that you guys in the US really have an issue with child marriage and you should fix that crap. I mean, you guys have 11 years old being forced to marry their rapists for Christ sake (Although that was in Florida, so maybe I should be surprised).

That incident happened decades ago. It got brought up last month after New York state didn't pass a bill raising the marry-with-parental-permission age from 14 to 17.

[scriver]

Forcing people to not wear the shawl is just as bad as forcing people to wear the shawl.

An argument that completely disregards the place of the shawls in Muslim cultures and societies. It's not a choice to begin with - it's a patriarchal mandate forced upon women from childhood and up.

...how? TBF never suggested it was a choice to wear the shawl. He just said that preventing someone from practicing a religion is just as bad as forcing them to.

As a counterpoint to the argument that shawls are inherently oppressive.

And at that, forcing people to not go along with an oppressive custom is not just as bad as forcing them to go along with it. Forcing people to not lock others in rooms is not the same as people forcing others into locked rooms.

@scriver: `:\
Aaaaand I also said what you said was bad is bad, too.  But you shouldn't take that as license to suppress someone's right to decide for themself to follow a religion.

They aren't deciding for themselves. Do you not know what a patriarchy means? It means men are deciding it for them.

And here we go again. Do you realise, TBF, that you are literally parroting the words of the Islamic establishment? That you choose to listen and take to heart the words and arguments of the people who are oppressing women and men in the middle east, and women amd men of middle eastern origin in the west, over listening to the many middle eastern feminists who oppose and fight against their patriarchal society?

If you think that after a post which's latter half literally focuses on women of Muslim origin wanting to escape Muslim oppression then you are seeing what you want to see.

And you're literally using bog standard supremacist and imperialist (hell, among others) rhetoric, heh. "Protect the women from the men" is straight up intentional strategy used by groups you were decrying (and yes, you gave a single throwaway mention of men in that second bit, which is also entirely normal for the practice). It may not have been intentional, but if you're talking useful idiot that is a blatant example thereof, which is why it was bloody mind-boggling to see you do it while accusing others of being the same.

Oddly enough, it's actually pretty relevant to US politics at the moment, too. Some of the shit that's resurgent with trump coming about are ones that cheerfully indulge in that particular vein of crap.

If you want to reduce the struggle against oppressive patriarchal structures to a patriarchal "protect the women against their men" argument then you must think the entire history of feminism and women's rights is "supremacist and imperialist". Siding with the women who do not want be oppressed by Islam is not supremacist or imperialist, it's taking a stand for basic human rights.

[smjjames]

*barely hides annoyance* How about you make another topic about patriarchialness/matriarchialness?

Anyways, this is funny in a wtf way, apparently Trumps lawyers think that everybody else are Trumps employees, which it doesn't even work that way. I wonder if Trump thinks of Congressmen/women as his 'employees' as well.

[Frumple]

I would, but I'm kinda' explicitly talking about something else

Siding with the women who do not want be oppressed by Islam is not supremacist or imperialist, it's taking a stand for basic human rights.

In context of this discussion I don't give the least of shits, scrive. My point is that you were spreading rhetoric that is straight up identical to supremacist messaging. I'm not talking, or particularly caring, about the whys and wherefores, just the what/how. If you're talking useful idiot for those groups -- and you were -- then you were acting as much or more a one than those you were coming down on. And shit, that's okay. It happens. You were at the least ostensibly trying to warn people that their messaging could be helping people they appear to very much disagree with. This is the same thing.

On top of it, though... you didn't come in talking about siding with women. You used them as a justification, but your point was against islam first and foremost, and freaking opened with a statement dehumanizing its members and claiming they are not worth support. Then warning against the invading foreigner (one who will do foul things to your women, by extension) coming to infiltrate society.

Again. That is straight up, very, very literally, the sort of rhetoric supremacists and people wanting to justify imperialist actions use. I'm not going to say it's intentional (honestly, it looks more to be an issue of you happening to be around that sort of thing a lot, and it infecting your talking points, which is rather common), and it's entirely possible you actually are more concerned about the oppressed than you are convincing people a massive demographic is subhuman, but your rhetoric was outright spreading the same message and tone used by supremacists and imperialists and their ilk. If you're going to warn people about doing that, you might want to not do the same in the process, y'know?

And sure, feminist messaging can fall into the same trap. It just usually has a slightly different focus (i.e. gender role nonsense first, causes second), or avoids that mess outright while still presenting support for people getting screwed over.

[scriver]

You are just seeing what you want to see, Frumple. You want me to be bad, so you've decided to see everything I say in as bad light as possible. Continuing this discussion is pointless.

[Frumple]

... bloody hell dude, I'm saying your wording could use work, particularly if it's doing what you're trying warn against. That's just about it. I've been specifically saying I don't actually think you're bad, just that you're unintentionally parroting shit you shouldn't want to, given what you're trying to say.

[smjjames]

I wonder if theres just different experiences here, what with Sweden having problems with their muslim immigrants and the US, not so much.

And I'm with Frumple here. Scriver, he really isn't labelling you as something bad, just warning that you're falling into the same rhetoric that you likely really wouldn't otherwise say.

[sluissa]

Just because two people say the same thing, and one person is an asshole, doesn't necessarily make both of them assholes or either of them wrong.

EDIT: Nobody here is an asshole.

[smjjames]

Just because two people say the same thing, and one person is an asshole, doesn't necessarily make both of them assholes or either of them wrong.

I can't tell if that's unintentionally aimed at either of the two guys above or not, but nobody is being an asshole here, and lets drop this before it gets any more inflamed.

[Frumple]

Of course it's possible, slu. Hell, I've been trying to mostly make that exact point, and so was scriver to a fair extent. That doesn't change that the same message is being spread, regardless of intent, which is where both of us are also coming from.

Some messed up degree of the problem we've had with that crap lately stateside is in part specifically that people have been borrowing or rolling with supremacist/anti-government/etc. messaging and wording, and by extension working towards normalizing it or allowing such groups to push their agendas significantly less hindered. It's probably why it's been more noticeable to me, personally, lately, though gods know how long that'll last.

And nah smj, pretty sure the asshole here is the supremacists et al, not actually directed at folks talking.

I wonder if theres just different experiences here, what with Sweden having problems with their muslim immigrants and the US, not so much.

And I'm with Frumple here. Scrivner, he really isn't labelling you as something bad, just warning that you're falling into the same rhetoric that you likely really wouldn't otherwise say.

It's possible? Good chunk of the reason it's easily identifiable for me is I've spent entirely too much bloody time around racists, and they hammer that sort of rhetoric just as hard as the groups already mentioned.

[smjjames]

I figured it was likely sluissa meant the supremacists, racists, etc (hence why I said 'unintentionally' and not 'intentionally', but was getting at the statement being somewhat ambiguous as to the target. And also attempting to head off any flames since it could easily be misunderstood in the heat of the moment.

[sluissa]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Pre-edit: Nobody here is a damaged timepiece.

[smjjames]

lol sluissa.... XD Humor is what we need anyway.

In an attempt to rerail this (or at least move onward discussing something else) Californians continue our independent rebel streak (no, this isn't about the California succession thing, I think we've gotten over that).