Good move. Some religious practices shouldn’t be legal if they lower public safety. I don’t see why couldn’t Muslim woman just wear simple Hijabs, if they want to preserve their religious freedom.
I am not 100% sure what does that mean (I am not a native speaker of English), but if you mean just providing sources, I don’t see necessity in doing that.
Ok Junge, ich übersetze es dir: Erklär und beweis uns den Zusammenhang zwischen Gesichtsschleier und öffentlicher Sicherheit. Ich übersetz es dann auch gern. Und ja, wenn du Behauptungen aufstellst solltest du sie auch beweisen können.
Sorry for shouting in German. I thought you‘d speak that, because it felt you had skin in the game. Anyway, I also think you should explain how a veil and public safety correlate. If you can‘t do it in your own words, you provide a link.
You’re way more likely to be killed by a far-right terrorist than a muslim terrorist. If you want to protect public safety, I feel like a far better way to do it would be to outlaw far-right content on social media and other online platforms.
There are already laws in various places which prohibit hate speech, including on the internet. I don’t see how banning anything, far-right related or not is a good concept, since someone would be responsible of determining what ‘far-right content’ is, and that can only cause political repressions of groups that are against current governing power(s). I don’t understand why would anyone want to see the censorship and repressions that are on par with ones in Russia. We are better than that.
So in your world it makes sense to ban pieces of cloth because “they’re dangerous” but it doesn’t make sense ban hatespeech and divisive content because they “can’t be defined”?
Thanks for your comment, but I’m a little confused - it’s very easy for nuance to get lost in online comments like this.
Are you saying that you are a supporter of absolute free speech, but you also support banning of certain clothing items, such as religious face coverings?
Or are you saying that you support current prohibitions against hate speech, but you wouldn’t support extending those laws, because you’re against censorship and that would be overstepping your personal red lines?
It seems to me that there is something mutually contradictory in there, but it’s very possible that I am misunderstanding you. To be clear, I’m not criticising you and I’m not interested in arguing or debating with you, I’m just trying to understand. I believe you should be entitled to believe what you want, and that you should be allowed to express your opinion. Personally, what I do have a problem with is online media platforms massively amplifying hateful extremist views to generate engagement.
Hope that makes sense! Feel free to ignore this comment if you don’t want to reply, and I wish you a pleasant day!
I am against all organised religion, but I think that we should all fear the authoritarian oppression of the state far more than any religion.
It’s a bit like the death penalty - I oppose the death penalty not because I think that there aren’t people
who we would all be better off if they weren’t alive, but because we cannot trust the state with that power.
I agree with you in principle but organized cults are fucking terrifying. In fact it is exactly when governments form around these cults that they become truly horrific and unstoppable.
I hear you, I just think that comparing religious ideology to other forms of deeply held ideology is a distinction without a difference. Some of the most horrific acts that humanity has ever committed have been done by comparatively secular groups - just look at the 20th century for examples of that.
We’re living through a period where far-right fascism is ascendant and white supremacy is being normalised. Corporations and billionaires have never held more power than they do currently.
I just feel like a lot of anti-religious sentiment is basically a distraction, so that we get so caught up in arguing about it that we don’t recognise the true threat, our real enemy - the rich bastards who are robbing us all blind, murdering countless innocent people, destroying the climate and the environment.
Probably there’s some motivation to be able to identify people who protest or people who don’t want to be filmed in public (especially with facial recognition technology becoming a reality).
But just say the law is there to annoy religious people and people will agree to a ban.
Can you name me a few cases where a Muslim woman threatened public safety in Switzerland, and then she couldn’t be identified because of a burka? I really want to know if there was a problem to solve.
Good move. Some religious practices shouldn’t be legal if they lower public safety. I don’t see why couldn’t Muslim woman just wear simple Hijabs, if they want to preserve their religious freedom.
Find me data tying veils and low public safety before saying that.
I am not 100% sure what does that mean (I am not a native speaker of English), but if you mean just providing sources, I don’t see necessity in doing that.
Yeah, please find any reasonable source for that.
Ok Junge, ich übersetze es dir: Erklär und beweis uns den Zusammenhang zwischen Gesichtsschleier und öffentlicher Sicherheit. Ich übersetz es dann auch gern. Und ja, wenn du Behauptungen aufstellst solltest du sie auch beweisen können.
Sorry for shouting in German. I thought you‘d speak that, because it felt you had skin in the game. Anyway, I also think you should explain how a veil and public safety correlate. If you can‘t do it in your own words, you provide a link.
From their post history, they’re not German, shouting at them in German is not helpful.
I’ve always shouting in German compels me to some kind of action, even if I’m sure what they want
ah, hadn‘t checked that. thanks
This is amazing (I don’t speak Germany don’t shout at me pls).
You’re way more likely to be killed by a far-right terrorist than a muslim terrorist. If you want to protect public safety, I feel like a far better way to do it would be to outlaw far-right content on social media and other online platforms.
There are already laws in various places which prohibit hate speech, including on the internet. I don’t see how banning anything, far-right related or not is a good concept, since someone would be responsible of determining what ‘far-right content’ is, and that can only cause political repressions of groups that are against current governing power(s). I don’t understand why would anyone want to see the censorship and repressions that are on par with ones in Russia. We are better than that.
So in your world it makes sense to ban pieces of cloth because “they’re dangerous” but it doesn’t make sense ban hatespeech and divisive content because they “can’t be defined”?
That’s not what I said at all.
It did sound that way to me. Feel free to correct the words from my previous comment.
Thanks for your comment, but I’m a little confused - it’s very easy for nuance to get lost in online comments like this.
Are you saying that you are a supporter of absolute free speech, but you also support banning of certain clothing items, such as religious face coverings?
Or are you saying that you support current prohibitions against hate speech, but you wouldn’t support extending those laws, because you’re against censorship and that would be overstepping your personal red lines?
It seems to me that there is something mutually contradictory in there, but it’s very possible that I am misunderstanding you. To be clear, I’m not criticising you and I’m not interested in arguing or debating with you, I’m just trying to understand. I believe you should be entitled to believe what you want, and that you should be allowed to express your opinion. Personally, what I do have a problem with is online media platforms massively amplifying hateful extremist views to generate engagement.
Hope that makes sense! Feel free to ignore this comment if you don’t want to reply, and I wish you a pleasant day!
I don’t think it has anything to do with public saftey. That wasn’t even a major argument during the campaign leading up the vote.
Man you bigots have been emboldened lately.
Removed by mod
I am against all organised religion, but I think that we should all fear the authoritarian oppression of the state far more than any religion.
It’s a bit like the death penalty - I oppose the death penalty not because I think that there aren’t people who we would all be better off if they weren’t alive, but because we cannot trust the state with that power.
I agree with you in principle but organized cults are fucking terrifying. In fact it is exactly when governments form around these cults that they become truly horrific and unstoppable.
I hear you, I just think that comparing religious ideology to other forms of deeply held ideology is a distinction without a difference. Some of the most horrific acts that humanity has ever committed have been done by comparatively secular groups - just look at the 20th century for examples of that.
We’re living through a period where far-right fascism is ascendant and white supremacy is being normalised. Corporations and billionaires have never held more power than they do currently.
I just feel like a lot of anti-religious sentiment is basically a distraction, so that we get so caught up in arguing about it that we don’t recognise the true threat, our real enemy - the rich bastards who are robbing us all blind, murdering countless innocent people, destroying the climate and the environment.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Probably there’s some motivation to be able to identify people who protest or people who don’t want to be filmed in public (especially with facial recognition technology becoming a reality).
But just say the law is there to annoy religious people and people will agree to a ban.
Can you name me a few cases where a Muslim woman threatened public safety in Switzerland, and then she couldn’t be identified because of a burka? I really want to know if there was a problem to solve.