|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2016 06:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:On August 18 2016 22:45 Godwrath wrote:On August 18 2016 09:35 Nyxisto wrote:On August 18 2016 08:32 IgnE wrote:
Islam means Submission, Nyx. Well a part of having authentic freedom is the freedom to submit, right? Nothing inherently wrong with forfeiting freedoms voluntarily. That's especially true when we're talking about sexual freedom. In this discussion about women and religion the idea seems to get lost that not everybody wants live as promiscuous as possible Did i understand this whole thing wrong about freedom to submit? What freedom do they really have? If i beat my wife and she stays with me she is exercising her right to submit aswell ? Then why the hell can neighbours call the police when she makes me a bad sandwich and i beat the crap out of her ? You are just talking like there are not muslim women which are not forced into submission. And also talking about the right to submit, when if i am not mistaken it, it also means that someone has to be the oppressor to be able to fulfill that. So by defending the right to freely use a burkini, burka or whatever, you are also defending the symbols of oppression of islam. That's just getting the crap beaten out of you, not voluntary submission, of course that's not good. But the marriage itself is a way of submission. You're giving up essential freedoms that you enjoy as an individual to live in a committed relationship with strong rules. That's not unlike being a religious person at all. The simple point I'm making is just that forfeiting freedoms is essential to actually having them. Reminds me of Chesterton: But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. That quote is a perfect illustration of Chesterton's particular brand of idiocy. A slightly more sophisticated Glenn Beck is all.
How is it idiotic? If you're attacking Islam on authoritarian grounds and at the same time request submission to your peculiar form of authority you're kicking away the chair you're standing on. You'll actually need to provide justification why becoming subject to one authority is preferable to the other. If you're just saying "because this is country X and here we do it this way!" You're down to the exact thing you're criticising, dogmatic obedience.
|
ok well im not doing that. i was never for banning the burkini. that doesnt make chesterton not a hack
|
France’s Burkini Bigotry
After bans on full-face veils, head scarves in schools and rules about students’ skirt lengths, France’s perennial problem with Muslim women’s attire has taken its most farcical turn yet with a new controversy over the “burkini,” body-covering swimwear whose name is an amalgam of burqa and bikini. As of Thursday, five French mayors had banned the burkini, calling it, variously, a threat to public order, hygiene, water safety and morality, tantamount to a new weapon of war against the French republic. Thierry Migoule, an official with the city of Cannes, the first to ban the burkini, declared the swimwear “clothing that conveys an allegiance to the terrorist movements that are waging war against us.”
This hysteria threatens to further stigmatize and marginalize France’s Muslims at a time when the country is listing to the Islamophobic right in the wake of a series of horrific terrorist attacks. And with presidential elections scheduled for next spring and the right-wing National Front’s popularity on the rise, French officials and politicians have leapt to support the mayors.
Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Wednesday called the burkini a symptom of “the enslavement of women” that “is not compatible with the values of France” and said “the nation must defend itself.” France’s women’s rights minister, Laurence Rossignol, declared the burkini “the beach version of the burqa” and said “it has the same logic: Hide women’s bodies in order to better control them.”
Tell that to the creator of the burkini, the Australian designer Aheda Zanetti, who coined the name for a line of swimwear she introduced to offer women who did not want to expose their bodies — for whatever reason — the freedom to enjoy water sports and the beach. The British chef and television star Nigella Lawson wore a burkini on an Australian beach in 2011, presumably of her own free will. Meanwhile, the world has watched Muslims proudly compete at the Olympics in Rio in body-covering sportswear.
The fact that French parents are increasingly dressing their toddlers in remarkably similar suits to protect them from the sun, or that a wet suit also covers the head and body, adds to the hypocrisy of this debate. But at the heart of the dispute is something far darker: French politicians’ paternalistic pronouncements on the republic’s duty to save Muslim women from enslavement — by dictating to them what they can and can’t wear. The burkini rumpus is also a convenient distraction from the problems France’s leaders have not been able to solve: high unemployment, lackluster economic growth and a still very real terrorist threat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/opinion/frances-burkini-bigotry.html?_r=0
Not everything is lost, at least we make the whole world laugh. I can't wait to see the high-level content of the next presidential campaign. French medias mock Donald Trump, but I'm ready to bet we'll reach the same level of idiocracy.
|
On August 19 2016 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:02 IgnE wrote:On August 19 2016 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:On August 18 2016 22:45 Godwrath wrote:On August 18 2016 09:35 Nyxisto wrote:On August 18 2016 08:32 IgnE wrote:
Islam means Submission, Nyx. Well a part of having authentic freedom is the freedom to submit, right? Nothing inherently wrong with forfeiting freedoms voluntarily. That's especially true when we're talking about sexual freedom. In this discussion about women and religion the idea seems to get lost that not everybody wants live as promiscuous as possible Did i understand this whole thing wrong about freedom to submit? What freedom do they really have? If i beat my wife and she stays with me she is exercising her right to submit aswell ? Then why the hell can neighbours call the police when she makes me a bad sandwich and i beat the crap out of her ? You are just talking like there are not muslim women which are not forced into submission. And also talking about the right to submit, when if i am not mistaken it, it also means that someone has to be the oppressor to be able to fulfill that. So by defending the right to freely use a burkini, burka or whatever, you are also defending the symbols of oppression of islam. That's just getting the crap beaten out of you, not voluntary submission, of course that's not good. But the marriage itself is a way of submission. You're giving up essential freedoms that you enjoy as an individual to live in a committed relationship with strong rules. That's not unlike being a religious person at all. The simple point I'm making is just that forfeiting freedoms is essential to actually having them. Reminds me of Chesterton: But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. That quote is a perfect illustration of Chesterton's particular brand of idiocy. A slightly more sophisticated Glenn Beck is all. How is it idiotic? If you're attacking Islam on authoritarian grounds and at the same time request submission to your peculiar form of authority you're kicking away the chair you're standing on. You'll actually need to provide justification why becoming subject to one authority is preferable to the other. If you're just saying "because this is country X and here we do it this way!" You're down to the exact thing you're criticising, dogmatic obedience.
What you are saying is that we need some proof that submission to the state and man made law is superior to submission to religion ? Huh real ? Are we back in the XVth century ?
On August 19 2016 21:15 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +France’s Burkini Bigotry
After bans on full-face veils, head scarves in schools and rules about students’ skirt lengths, France’s perennial problem with Muslim women’s attire has taken its most farcical turn yet with a new controversy over the “burkini,” body-covering swimwear whose name is an amalgam of burqa and bikini. As of Thursday, five French mayors had banned the burkini, calling it, variously, a threat to public order, hygiene, water safety and morality, tantamount to a new weapon of war against the French republic. Thierry Migoule, an official with the city of Cannes, the first to ban the burkini, declared the swimwear “clothing that conveys an allegiance to the terrorist movements that are waging war against us.”
This hysteria threatens to further stigmatize and marginalize France’s Muslims at a time when the country is listing to the Islamophobic right in the wake of a series of horrific terrorist attacks. And with presidential elections scheduled for next spring and the right-wing National Front’s popularity on the rise, French officials and politicians have leapt to support the mayors.
Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Wednesday called the burkini a symptom of “the enslavement of women” that “is not compatible with the values of France” and said “the nation must defend itself.” France’s women’s rights minister, Laurence Rossignol, declared the burkini “the beach version of the burqa” and said “it has the same logic: Hide women’s bodies in order to better control them.”
Tell that to the creator of the burkini, the Australian designer Aheda Zanetti, who coined the name for a line of swimwear she introduced to offer women who did not want to expose their bodies — for whatever reason — the freedom to enjoy water sports and the beach. The British chef and television star Nigella Lawson wore a burkini on an Australian beach in 2011, presumably of her own free will. Meanwhile, the world has watched Muslims proudly compete at the Olympics in Rio in body-covering sportswear.
The fact that French parents are increasingly dressing their toddlers in remarkably similar suits to protect them from the sun, or that a wet suit also covers the head and body, adds to the hypocrisy of this debate. But at the heart of the dispute is something far darker: French politicians’ paternalistic pronouncements on the republic’s duty to save Muslim women from enslavement — by dictating to them what they can and can’t wear. The burkini rumpus is also a convenient distraction from the problems France’s leaders have not been able to solve: high unemployment, lackluster economic growth and a still very real terrorist threat. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/opinion/frances-burkini-bigotry.html?_r=0Not everything is lost, at least we make the whole world laugh. I can't wait to see the high-level content of the next presidential campaign. French medias mock Donald Trump, but I'm ready to bet we'll reach the same level of idiocracy.
Imo, the new york times should just shut the fuck up. There is no ban for "head scarves" in school, there is a ban for every type of religious symbol, not to mention that it is forbidden to have ANYTHING on your head in school - religious or not. In my lycée, there are people who ask students to take off everything they have on their head as soon as they enter the school, and it has been the same since god knows when.
Damn stupid ass journal. The length of skirt is not the subject of any rule, there are just some conflict in regard to whether a long ass black skirt is a religious symbol, or not - with some girls being refused in some school for it.
But the New York Times does not care about reality, what the New York Times care is that it can argue that France is islamophobic, because the New York Times is not a journal but a load of crap.
I mean you just have to SLIGHTLY read some french to know this, you don't even need to come to France. Journalism 2.0 > New York Times. Opinions pieces are great and important for a jounal, but you need a certain degree of objectivity and knowledge to propose a piece worth reading. This piece, on the other hand, screams out "I don't know shit about France and don't understand why they don't do like us".
This kind of shit is not good for my heart.
|
On August 19 2016 21:47 WhiteDog wrote:
Imo, the new york times should just shut the fuck up. There is no ban for "head scarves" in school, there is a ban for every type of religious symbol, not to mention that it is forbidden to have ANYTHING on your head in school - religious or not.
Please. The 2004 law was mostly targetting the hijab. The other religious signs were an excuse, the debates were almost EXCLUSIVELY about the islamic headscarf, but of course you can't pass something so blatantly discriminatory, so people had to resort to the “look, we ban other signs too so everyone is treated equally!” alibi. Yeah, pupils aren't allowed to have hats or caps on their head, but you know very well that this was neither the underlying problem nor the source of the controversy. That's the same as the 2010 law; theoretically it's not an anti-burqa/niqab law, just something generic to prevent people from covering their faces in the public space. We still all know that it was specifically aimed at the burqa/niqab. No idea why you even waste time trying to conceal that. That's pure hypocrisy.
Damn stupid ass journal. The length of skirt is not the subject of any rule, there are just some conflict in regard to whether a long ass skirt is a religious symbol, or not - with some girls being refused in some school for it.
Okay, the journalist used a slightly abusive/imprecise formula, this naturally disqualifies his entire point.
But the New York Times does not care about reality, what the New York Times care is that it can argue that France is islamophobic, because the New York Times is not a journal but a load of crap.
I mean you just have to SLIGHTLY read some french to know this, you don't even need to come to France. Journalism 2.0 > New York Times. Opinions peaces are great and important, but you need a certain degree of objectivity and knowledge to propose a piece worth reading. This piece, on the other hand, screams out "I don't know shit about France and don't understand why they don't do like us".
Yeah, for people in denial I can understand that it's seen as “French bashing”. From a mainstream newspaper, which usually tend to write a lot of crap indeed, I find this article mostly correct. The very fact that you get overly mad because France isn't pictured in a good light in this article is quite telling. This is symptomatic of how this country is just incapable of looking itself in the mirror regarding certain issues.
|
Please. The 2004 law was mostly targetting the hijab. The other religious signs were an excuse, the debates were almost EXCLUSIVELY about the islamic headscarf, but of course you can't pass something so blatantly discriminatory, so people had to resort to the “look, we ban other signs too so everyone is treated equally!” alibi. Yeah, pupils aren't allowed to have hats or caps on their head, but you know very well that this was neither the underlying problem nor the source of the controversy. That's the same as the 2010 law; theoretically it's not an anti-burqa/niqab law, just something generic to prevent people from covering their faces in the public space. We still all know that it was specifically aimed at the burqa/niqab. No idea why you even waste time trying to conceal that. That's pure hypocrisy.
Do you know anything about the history of the country you live in ?
|
On August 19 2016 22:51 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Please. The 2004 law was mostly targetting the hijab. The other religious signs were an excuse, the debates were almost EXCLUSIVELY about the islamic headscarf, but of course you can't pass something so blatantly discriminatory, so people had to resort to the “look, we ban other signs too so everyone is treated equally!” alibi. Yeah, pupils aren't allowed to have hats or caps on their head, but you know very well that this was neither the underlying problem nor the source of the controversy. That's the same as the 2010 law; theoretically it's not an anti-burqa/niqab law, just something generic to prevent people from covering their faces in the public space. We still all know that it was specifically aimed at the burqa/niqab. No idea why you even waste time trying to conceal that. That's pure hypocrisy. Do you know anything about the history of the country you live in ?
Nope, I'm dumb and ignorant, unlike you who know everything.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 19 2016 23:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 22:51 WhiteDog wrote:Please. The 2004 law was mostly targetting the hijab. The other religious signs were an excuse, the debates were almost EXCLUSIVELY about the islamic headscarf, but of course you can't pass something so blatantly discriminatory, so people had to resort to the “look, we ban other signs too so everyone is treated equally!” alibi. Yeah, pupils aren't allowed to have hats or caps on their head, but you know very well that this was neither the underlying problem nor the source of the controversy. That's the same as the 2010 law; theoretically it's not an anti-burqa/niqab law, just something generic to prevent people from covering their faces in the public space. We still all know that it was specifically aimed at the burqa/niqab. No idea why you even waste time trying to conceal that. That's pure hypocrisy. Do you know anything about the history of the country you live in ? Nope, I'm dumb and ignorant, unlike you who know everything.
No need to compliment me really.
A few events =/= a "rule" ; If this is just some wording problem to you then I don't know what to say.
And yeah it means a lot that all religious symbols are banned, and not simply the hijab. It was common practice to ask people to refrain from showing religious belief in class way before the law ; and it was indeed already refused to anyone to come with a cassock in class, or a huge cross. I don't know if you know but the left asked for the end of private schools for ages just because, in private schools, cross and religious teachings were possible. In fact, if you had actual knowledge, you'd know public teachers refuse every years to even pass exams in places that exhibit religious symbol, such as catholic private schools.
The french forced the laïcité on the christian church with weapons in hand. Stop trying to imply that what is happening is happening out of some kind of racism in regards to its muslim population. French cultural specificity is just clashing with new behaviors coming from a minority, and the 2004 law was written as a way to clarify practices in regards to the application of the laïcité for those new behaviors.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
Stop the shit posting please, no need to drag this thread down over nothing. You can trade one liners by PM.
|
Some incredibly immature PR fight has been going on this week between Turkey and Sweden (feat. Austria)
A billboard at Istanbul's international airport accused Sweden of having the highest rape rate worldwide, state media reported on Friday, just days after Stockholm accused Ankara of legalising sex with children.
Printed in English and Turkish and displayed at the international departures section of Ataturk airport, the huge banner ad reads: "Travel Warning! Did you know that Sweden has the highest rape rate worldwide?" Anadolu news agency reported alongside a picture of the ad.
Alongside it was an enlarged copy of the front page of pro-government newspaper Gunes with a headline declaring: "Sweden, a country of rape."
A Turkish official, who declined to be named, said: "It's an ad for Gunes newspaper and not an official notice."
Anadolu said billboard advertisements at the airport were operated by a private company.
The advert was largely seen as a tit-for-tat move after Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom caused a storm through a tweet saying the "Turkish decision to allow sex with children under 15 must be reversed", following a controversial ruling by the Turkish constitutional court.
Her Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu blasted her remark as "unacceptable", saying Wallstrom should have acted "responsibly" while Sweden's charge d'affaires were summoned to the foreign ministry.
The airport ad sparked storm on social media, with several users hitting back at the "propaganda against Sweden" while others agreed with it.
One Twitter handle @Asb Ogrenci wrote: "Sweden, a country of rape #DontTravelToSweden" while another, @ceeean, said: "There are much more cases of rape in (Turkey) than Sweden."
- 'Misconceptions'-
In response, the Swedish embassy in Turkey posted a statement on its website entitled "misconceptions on rape statistics", which said that comparing reports of rape in Sweden with reports in other countries with different legal and statistical systems "does not describe reality correctly."
The embassy said Sweden has a broad judicial definition of acts that are considered as rape, and uses a broad definition when calculating crime statistics.
"Every single offence is for example recorded separately and all reported events are counted as crimes even if some of them later are found not to have constituted criminal offences," it added.
The controversy with Stockholm erupted earlier this week after Turkey's top constitutional court annulled a criminal code provision punishing as "sexual abuse" all sexual acts involving children under the age of 15, responding to a petition brought by a lower court.
The top court has given parliament a six-month period to draw up new rules based on its ruling.
The lower court that brought the petition was worried there was no distinction between cases of sexual acts involving a young teenager or a toddler.
The legal age of consent in Turkey remains 18 and was not affected by the ruling. But it sparked outrage among activists worried it would open the way for unpunished child sexual abuse.
In a similar spat with Austria over a news ticker at Vienna airport about the age of consent controversy, Ankara also summoned the Austrian charge d'affaires at the weekend.
The news ticker -- supplied by mass-circulation daily Kronen-Zeitung -- said in German: "Turkey allows sex with children under 15.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-airport-ad-accuses-sweden-highest-rape-rate-170016247.html
|
On August 19 2016 21:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What you are saying is that we need some proof that submission to the state and man made law is superior to submission to religion ? Huh real ? Are we back in the XVth century ?
I'm saying that the experience that people have with the state, public authority and religion is vastly different dependent on where they're coming from and what their social standing is, which should be obvious.
I've you've been pushed through the Grandes écoles, live in a nice neighborhood and are a good public servant you're going to have more trust in the state than some disenfranchised Algerian kid. And how desperate is the authority really I've we've reached burqini banning level? Is the motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité..(and ban the burqini)"?
People are flocking away from public discourse and institutions either into alternative media channels, religious institutions and whatnot because they've not been able to give a serious answer to any problem for like two or three decades. Voting numbers are down by what? 30%-40% compared to a few decades ago? If it'd be so dead obvious that society can give great answers to the problems of disenfranchised young adults they wouldn't be running off to Syria.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
From my own experience with immigration I can definitely say that religious institutions are often very important to settling into a new country. They offer a degree of cultural similarity that you can latch onto that really does help move into a new society and learn how to succeed there. Religious institutions are deeply flawed in many ways but they provide an important sense of cultural solidarity to the people who come from a different part of society and it's understandable why immigrants flock to those institutions in general.
|
On August 20 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
From my own experience with immigration I can definitely say that religious institutions are often very important to settling into a new country. They offer a degree of cultural similarity that you can latch onto that really does help move into a new society and learn how to succeed there. Religious institutions are deeply flawed in many ways but they provide an important sense of cultural solidarity to the people who come from a different part of society and it's understandable why immigrants flock to those institutions in general.
It is entirely true, in fact in France many mayors promoted the muslim religion as an efficient way to prevent small delinquency and facilitate integration.
Now it is coming back in their ass as they are understanding that this also facilitated the radicalisation of many young immigrant and sons of immigrants of muslim descent.
From a global standpoint, many studies showed that religious practice is one of main caracteristic that explain the absence of mixed mariage (between migrants and natives). In the UK, the number of mixed mariage is really, really small in the muslim population and the indu population.
So it's really a double edged sword ; it has a lot of important benefit for a society, but can also create huge problems. Those problems are mostly negated when one religion is vastly dominant ; which is not the case in France, and will not be the case in many european countries in the years to come.
And anyway, I'm not sure you can implement policies and change the culture of a country. Any kind of party that would defend religions against laïcité would instantly be met with incredible resistance from the civil society. The National Front is, in certain ways, already a result of that "americanization" of the french public debate.
|
On August 20 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 21:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What you are saying is that we need some proof that submission to the state and man made law is superior to submission to religion ? Huh real ? Are we back in the XVth century ?
I'm saying that the experience that people have with the state, public authority and religion is vastly different dependent on where they're coming from and what their social standing is, which should be obvious. I've you've been pushed through the Grandes écoles, live in a nice neighborhood and are a good public servant you're going to have more trust in the state than some disenfranchised Algerian kid. And how desperate is the authority really I've we've reached burqini banning level? Is the motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité..(and ban the burqini)"? People are flocking away from public discourse and institutions either into alternative media channels, religious institutions and whatnot because they've not been able to give a serious answer to any problem for like two or three decades. Voting numbers are down by what? 30%-40% compared to a few decades ago? If it'd be so dead obvious that society can give great answers to the problems of disenfranchised young adults they wouldn't be running off to Syria.
Perhaps if it was possible to openly discuss the issues with certain groups openly and factually without get shamed and name called society would've been able to tackle these situations better - and actually provided solid solutions.
I mean, if you are actually surprised at the way things have turned out over the past 10 years you have had your head buried in the sand.
|
France266 Posts
The NY Times is the whole world now? This caricatural rag whose insight on the world don't go further than the bourgeois boroughs of their hometown?
You should take a moment to read the comment section of some burkini ban-related articles on The Guardian (whose journalists are laying pro burkini articles as if they were eggs). You'll see how a vast majority of its left-leaning subscribers actually support the ban, and loathe the regressive faux liberal who are out of touch with reality.
The international public opinion on this issue is a far cry from what the monolithic response you claim it is.
On August 19 2016 22:47 TheDwf wrote:
Yeah, for people in denial I can understand that it's seen as “French bashing”. From a mainstream newspaper, which usually tend to write a lot of crap indeed, I find this article mostly correct. The very fact that you get overly mad because France isn't pictured in a good light in this article is quite telling. This is symptomatic of how this country is just incapable of looking itself in the mirror regarding certain issues.
You exhibit an all too common set of symptoms of French-bashing yourself. Hopefully this particular brand of self-hating French leftism, which screams of colonialism and racism at every opportunity, will dry out as the nostalgics of may 68 retire from education and from the public life.
On August 20 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
People are flocking away from public discourse and institutions either into alternative media channels, religious institutions and whatnot because they've not been able to give a serious answer to any problem for like two or three decades. Voting numbers are down by what? 30%-40% compared to a few decades ago? If it'd be so dead obvious that society can give great answers to the problems of disenfranchised young adults they wouldn't be running off to Syria.
Voting numbers today are roughly the same as 30-40 years ago (2012 presidential election second round had a 80% turnout, compared to 85% turnouts in 1981 and 1988). Even the infamous first round of the 2002 presidential election (which brought far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen to the second round) featured a 72% turnout. And voter registration is just as high today as it was 40 years ago. So you are factually wrong here.
Don't even think of claiming that French society and democratic institutions is what "disenfranchises" young muslims and make them go to Syria. Hardship affects all young people in our country nowadays, and yet only the sunni muslims somehow end up spree killing their fellow men. Adel Kermiche, who murdered the priest in Normandy, comes from a family that wasn't short of money. His siblings were raised in the same setup as he was, and yet his older sister became a surgeon. They had the exact same opportunities in life, but she is a surgeon, and he is a coward who murdered an elderly man. (And just so you know, his other siblings also have higher education degrees, including an engineer)
So no, it's not the French society or institutions that are to blame for modern jihadism.
|
Finally a reasonable post. Thanks Koorb. I love your response after the second quote and I hope it becomes reality. I really can't stand this self-bashing attitude.
|
Turkey wedding blast: 30 dead and 90 hurt in Gaziantep
An explosion at an outdoor wedding party in the southern Turkish city of Gaziantep has killed at least 30 people and injured 94 more, the region's governor says.
The Turkish government has called it a "terror attack" and suggested it was carried out by a suicide bomber.
Gaziantep, which is mainly Kurdish, is 64km (40 miles) from the Syrian border.
Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek called the attack "barbaric" but said: "God willing, we will overcome."
It happened in a part of the city where many university students live, after a wedding party spilled out on to the streets. The blast was heard across town.
Was IS behind this? Mark Lowen, Istanbul
No group has said it was behind the bombing - but government sources say it could have been carried out by so-called Islamic State, which is known to have operatives in the border city of Gaziantep.
Turkey has been hit by a series of bombs both by IS and Kurdish militants in the past year, with the last IS attack on Istanbul airport in June, killing more than 40 people.
The jihadists have recently lost ground in northern Syria, including a former stronghold, Manbij. Syrian rebel soldiers are preparing to advance further into the IS-held province of Jarablus.
If this bomb was the work of IS, there will be speculation it is a revenge attack, intended as a show of strength by a group on the defensive.
The BBC's Seref Isler, who is from Gaziantep, said the attack "took place in a city that is already on edge because of what's happening right across the border" but was even more shocking because a wedding party was targeted.
He said: "Weddings are in Turkey considered sacred and very happy occasions, so to intentionally turn it in to a bloodbath has received some very staunch criticism to say the least.
"Turkish society seems to have been horrified that this has targeted specifically a wedding, what should have been the happiest day of this couple's lives."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37146531
|
On August 21 2016 10:44 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +Turkey wedding blast: 30 dead and 90 hurt in Gaziantep
An explosion at an outdoor wedding party in the southern Turkish city of Gaziantep has killed at least 30 people and injured 94 more, the region's governor says.
The Turkish government has called it a "terror attack" and suggested it was carried out by a suicide bomber.
Gaziantep, which is mainly Kurdish, is 64km (40 miles) from the Syrian border.
Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek called the attack "barbaric" but said: "God willing, we will overcome."
It happened in a part of the city where many university students live, after a wedding party spilled out on to the streets. The blast was heard across town.
Was IS behind this? Mark Lowen, Istanbul
No group has said it was behind the bombing - but government sources say it could have been carried out by so-called Islamic State, which is known to have operatives in the border city of Gaziantep.
Turkey has been hit by a series of bombs both by IS and Kurdish militants in the past year, with the last IS attack on Istanbul airport in June, killing more than 40 people.
The jihadists have recently lost ground in northern Syria, including a former stronghold, Manbij. Syrian rebel soldiers are preparing to advance further into the IS-held province of Jarablus.
If this bomb was the work of IS, there will be speculation it is a revenge attack, intended as a show of strength by a group on the defensive.
The BBC's Seref Isler, who is from Gaziantep, said the attack "took place in a city that is already on edge because of what's happening right across the border" but was even more shocking because a wedding party was targeted.
He said: "Weddings are in Turkey considered sacred and very happy occasions, so to intentionally turn it in to a bloodbath has received some very staunch criticism to say the least.
"Turkish society seems to have been horrified that this has targeted specifically a wedding, what should have been the happiest day of this couple's lives." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37146531
More than 50 deats now and Erdogan says it was done by a 12-14 year old suicide bomber.
|
On August 21 2016 04:56 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
People are flocking away from public discourse and institutions either into alternative media channels, religious institutions and whatnot because they've not been able to give a serious answer to any problem for like two or three decades. Voting numbers are down by what? 30%-40% compared to a few decades ago? If it'd be so dead obvious that society can give great answers to the problems of disenfranchised young adults they wouldn't be running off to Syria. Voting numbers today are roughly the same as 30-40 years ago (2012 presidential election second round had a 80% turnout, compared to 85% turnouts in 1981 and 1988). Even the infamous first round of the 2002 presidential election (which brought far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen to the second round) featured a 72% turnout. And voter registration is just as high today as it was 40 years ago. So you are factually wrong here. Don't even think of claiming that French society and democratic institutions is what "disenfranchises" young muslims and make them go to Syria. Hardship affects all young people in our country nowadays, and yet only the sunni muslims somehow end up spree killing their fellow men. Adel Kermiche, who murdered the priest in Normandy, comes from a family that wasn't short of money. His siblings were raised in the same setup as he was, and yet his older sister became a surgeon. They had the exact same opportunities in life, but she is a surgeon, and he is a coward who murdered an elderly man. (And just so you know, his other siblings also have higher education degrees, including an engineer) So no, it's not the French society or institutions that are to blame for modern jihadism.
Taking the French Presidential election as an example is misleading, because presidential elections will always draw tons of people to vote, it's easier to vote for the guy who had his image carefully crafted through propaganda and the medias than to actually think about what a party is proposing. It is much better to take a look at the Parliamentary elections : abstention was at 15,95% in 1978, 27% in 1981, 21,5% in 1986, and start to shoot over 30%, with a near-continous increase, from 1988 onwards, to finally arrive at the ridiculous figures of 39,8% in 2007 and 43,69% (!) in 2012 (all those numbers are averages of first and second round turnout, except 1986 where there was no second round because of proportional vote). Referendum numbers are, unsurprisingly, strongly linked to whether or not people give a fuck, independently of when they are held. Turnout at regional elections is also decreasing, though in a irregular manner. Municipal elections show a near-constant decrease in voter turnout, averaging roughly 75% in 1959 and 61% in 2014. Thus, while his estimate is wrong, he's not completely wrong about that.
As for your second point, you realize that having money is, in France, no guarantee of becoming a doctor or surgeon, right?
|
I can understand (and sympathise with) the ban of religious symbols in places like schools or court rooms, but does the state really have the mandate to tell you what clothes you can use for swimming in the ocean in your own free time? To me that sounds like a step over the line - from a form of social contract to something more like totalitarianism light...? What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
