Zompist Bboard Again

To me attacking the veil as being "sexist" is normally just an excuse to attack Muslims, nothing more, nothing less. While I am against pressuring women to wear the veil, if women wish to wear the veil, that is completely their choice and their right.

The veil is seen as sexist here in France, on the right and often on the left as well. Personally, I don't see things that way, but that's really a minority point of view here.
Motives vary. Attacking Muslims is a part of it, but some of it is also anti-religious sentiment. (A lot of people here are opposed to all religion as a matter of principle.)

Oh, for the love of...

If your country had no public outcry over religious symbols until women in hijabs became a common sight, you don't get to pretend you're just against religion as a whole. I don't see people flipping cop cars over the continued infiltration of French society by evil, child-raping Seventh Day Adventists. People having philosophical objections to religiocity are not the reason it has become unsafe to wear a yamulke in France. And it's not the reason why wearing a cross is treated as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, but the niqab is not.

This argument isn't clever, and no one buys it. Bringing a bunch of dog whistles and self-absolving fictions about bigorty to a conversation with Americans is like trying to sell a used car to Charles Ponzi.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:06 pm Oh, for the love of...

If your country had no public outcry over religious symbols until women in hijabs became a common sight, you don't get to pretend you're just against religion as a whole. I don't see people flipping cop cars over the continued infiltration of French society by evil, child-raping Seventh Day Adventists. People having philosophical objections to religiocity are not the reason it has become unsafe to wear a yamulke in France. And it's not the reason why wearing a cross is treated as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, but the niqab is not.

This argument isn't clever, and no one buys it. Bringing a bunch of dog whistles and self-absolving fictions about bigorty to a conversation with Americans is like trying to sell a used car to Charles Ponzi.

If opposition to religiosity were the real matter, the French would have demolished the remains of Notre Dame cathedral after it burned rather than committing to reconstructing it from what remained.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:06 pm Oh, for the love of...

If your country had no public outcry over religious symbols until women in hijabs became a common sight, you don't get to pretend you're just against religion as a whole. I don't see people flipping cop cars over the continued infiltration of French society by evil, child-raping Seventh Day Adventists. People having philosophical objections to religiocity are not the reason it has become unsafe to wear a yamulke in France. And it's not the reason why wearing a cross is treated as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, but the niqab is not.

This argument isn't clever, and no one buys it. Bringing a bunch of dog whistles and self-absolving fictions about bigorty to a conversation with Americans is like trying to sell a used car to Charles Ponzi.

Sigh...

Did you actually read my post? It's rather short and to the point, I think, but you still managed to miss some bits like 'anti-Muslim sentiment is a part of it' or 'Motives vary'?

Attacking me for bigotry and dog-whistling is also pointless because I have no problem with the veil myself and I don't share in the outcry over religious symbols. What I'm doing is reporting that most people here have some sort of problem with the veil.

More largely people are complicated and have various motive. You'll find a solid share of bigots, a share of people who don't consider themselves racist but still hold quite a bit of prejudice, religious Catholics who actively hate Islam and about any position in between.
As it happens, there are quite a few people in France (not all, not a majority, but a good share of the population) who feel that all religion is evil, all religion is sexist, and object to the veil on those grounds.
I don't think that position is really tenable myself, but people hold these views and being aware of this is key to understanding why anti-veil measures can get broad popular support.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:28 pm If opposition to religiosity were the real matter, the French would have demolished the remains of Notre Dame cathedral after it burned rather than committing to reconstructing it from what remained.

That's not how it works. I'm pretty anti-religious myself, but I'm still attached to works of art and national treasures, religious or not.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:06 pm Oh, for the love of...

If your country had no public outcry over religious symbols until women in hijabs became a common sight, you don't get to pretend you're just against religion as a whole. I don't see people flipping cop cars over the continued infiltration of French society by evil, child-raping Seventh Day Adventists.

What a brilliant response to Ares Land's horrible post, where he infamously wrote

There's no hostility towards Muslims in France at all. What's perceived as that is all just generic anti-religious sentiment.

Oh wait, he didn't write that. He wrote

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:15 am Motives vary. Attacking Muslims is a part of it, but some of it is also anti-religious sentiment. (A lot of people here are opposed to all religion as a matter of principle.)

Perhaps I should repeat that with some parts in bold and underlined

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:15 am Motives vary. Attacking Muslims is a part of it, but some of it is also anti-religious sentiment. (A lot of people here are opposed to all religion as a matter of principle.)

Oh, and your claim to know exactly what's going on in France wrt religious matters would be more convincing if you showed at least some awareness of traditional French anti-clericalism. But since you yourself wrote

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:06 pm If your country had no public outcry over religious symbols until women in hijabs became a common sight,

..it frankly looks like you've got no idea that this tradition even exists.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:06 pm Bringing a bunch of dog whistles and self-absolving fictions about bigorty to a conversation with Americans is like trying to sell a used car to Charles Ponzi.

Interpreting everything that happens through the lens of their own country's flaws, problems, and squabbles, while psychologically understandable, is still one way Americans demonstrate their ignorance of the world and make themselves unpopular everywhere.

Yes, French anti-clericalism has a long and storied history, that well predates the hijab becoming an issue in France. Originally the primary target of this anti-clericalism was the Catholic Church, specifically because the Catholic Church used to be very influential and powerful in France. This is something that Americans tend to not be aware of.

That said, I still strongly get the impression (as an American of course) that modern-day objections to hijab only use opposition to religion as an excuse to selectively target Muslims. While bans on religious clothing in certain contexts do in theory include things like no conspicuous wearing of crosses, in reality I hear very few people complaining about people in France wearing crosses, whereas I hear frequent comments on hijab.

So I hear there's another writers' strike on. Anyone know of any quick explainers about which writers are striking?

Unrelated to my previous post: In which court, in which place did these scumbags get convicted?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:32 am Unrelated to my previous post: In which court, in which place did these scumbags get convicted?

Apparently the US District Court for DC.

A thought: there seems to be a particular type of politician in the USA - let's call them the "boring lawyer type" - who often does fairly well in elections for every other political office, but usually fails miserably when they try to run for president. Really, a politician of that type might easily get themselves elected Governor, or Senator, or Congresscritter, or even get themselves appointed as Cabinet Member, but if they enter presidential primaries, they usually get three percent or less in the early caucuses and primaries, and then drop out afterwards. The last POTUS to fit that type was arguably Gerald Ford, who was never elected.

So, to some extent, people from the USA seem to have different tastes for other political offices than for President.

Any thoughts?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:28 am So I hear there's another writers' strike on. Anyone know of any quick explainers about which writers are striking?

Do you mean like which TV shows are affected? It's the Writers Guild of America, which is two unions (WGA East and WGA West) that cooperate on contract negotiations.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 10:44 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:28 am So I hear there's another writers' strike on. Anyone know of any quick explainers about which writers are striking?

Do you mean like which TV shows are affected? It's the Writers Guild of America, which is two unions (WGA East and WGA West) that cooperate on contract negotiations.

Thank you. So it's a TV thing? I was wondering if I'm metaphorically crossing a picket line if I read something on one of those websites that pay their writers.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 10:57 amThank you. So it's a TV thing? I was wondering if I'm metaphorically crossing a picket line if I read something on one of those websites that pay their writers.

It mostly affects TV (and streaming), since films have a longer development schedule. Journalists have their own unions, so if you're reading news sites, you're not crossing a picket line. Offhand I don't know of any websites that are involved.

Thank you!

A couple of hours ago I heard that US media, when they show bald eagles, often dub in the sounds made by some other birds - apparently usually red-tailed hawks - because the sounds made by bald eagles themselves don't sound impressive enough for the national animal of a powerful country. Pretty funny if true. Though kind of pathetic as well, of course.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 1:30 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 10:57 amThank you. So it's a TV thing? I was wondering if I'm metaphorically crossing a picket line if I read something on one of those websites that pay their writers.

It mostly affects TV (and streaming), since films have a longer development schedule. Journalists have their own unions, so if you're reading news sites, you're not crossing a picket line. Offhand I don't know of any websites that are involved.

Also, as far as I'm aware, the WGA is not calling for a boycott, so watching TV shows etc. is not crossing a picket line. Crossing the picket line in this case would be things like doing writing work for a television show or pitching show ideas to producers.

I'm trying to think of a good comment on the Santos arrest and indictment, but can't really come up with anything.

Edited to add: found this on Mastodon:

https://mstdn.social/@nomoremister/110344793616144462

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 6:03 am A couple of hours ago I heard that US media, when they show bald eagles, often dub in the sounds made by some other birds - apparently usually red-tailed hawks - because the sounds made by bald eagles themselves don't sound impressive enough for the national animal of a powerful country. Pretty funny if true. Though kind of pathetic as well, of course.

Ah, a fellow Animalogic enjoyer I see.

Torco wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 10:14 am Ah, a fellow Animalogic enjoyer I see.

Nah, I only heard about that channel from your post. I got it from Mastodon myself.