You are a wonder of pure bad faith. One argument of one part of one point amongst 7 seems off to you, and you stop reading, and you do not even answer what you have already read ? Like “Oh, 7 words of your answer are abusive, so i dont care about the 1000 others”.

And it’s not abusive. Everyone now admits there were slaughters by the police against arabic populations in france. Not in 2021 you are right, but i think you know there are multiple years in history. France committed series of historical slaughters against arabic people, mostly algerians, both in their countries and on the french ground. The most known about is the paris massacre of 1961. Nowadays, police still kills more people with arabic names than with any else culture. (Source here, at the end of the page, french only)

Now if you want to be taken seriously, you probably should stop avoiding every point i make by misinterpreting it or by just ignoring it. There is no muslim shill anywhere in this discussion, just some who cares for everyone’s liberty and some who hates on muslim because it is the last thing that make them think they still defend liberty when they just prefer the comfort of an oppressive state over the one of partly oppressive religion.

Ill try to make it clear one last time, not for you but for anyone passing by, my comments are always too long but i’ll try to make what i believe and defend concise.

Should women be free to show their hair ? YES. Should we fight against anyone who wants to force them otherwise ? YES. Should women be free to hide their hair ? YES. Should we fight against anyone who wants to force them otherwise ? YES.

Anyone who goes against their liberty is a bastard. Conservatives muslims are bastards. Conservative republicans are bastards.

Okay, point by point

1. Parallel with slavery : you did not at all understand my statement. I meant that if you say that its illegal for someone to be a slave, slave will go to prison and wont be free. When we say “slavery is prohibited”, we say that HAVING SLAVES is illegal, not BEING A SLAVE. Same with muslim shit, forcing women to wear stuff should be banned, not women wearing stuff. And we agree, slavery ended up when people used violence against slave tarders, not against slave themselves (which is why the parallel with the hijab/abaya situation is absurd, because here people are taking actions against the women they claim to protect, and not the one who are forcing women).

2. You just misunderstood me again, please think about what i say before writing anything. Here, “That” does not refer to “abolishing slavery”, but to “make slaves illegal people” (which has never been made, on the opposite, they were given legal rights).

3. So you concede that the true problem comes from morals, and not religion. That is a good point. You can fight both, but they are to be fought in different ways, this is two different things. Religion is less shitty idea when it does not talk abouth enforcing thing on other people (when it does, well it’s morals or politics). Then, you can say that only-spiritual religion is bad too, but that’s your fight, not mine or everyone’s fight. As I care for everyone to be free, I want everyone to be able to choose what spirituality they want, including dumb believings from thousand of years ago. But sure, you can fight their ideologies with your personal bullshit. And to do so, you need them in public places to discuss with them, so they should go in schools to be able to go to university and all common places where citizens can discuss.

4. Are you seriously asking why arabic and muslim people are oppressed in France ? There litteraly were slaughter by the police, they kill more arabic people than anyone else, they are insulted in the streets, they are criticized for their clothes, there are victims of terrorist attacks from right wing. Plus the same rule for everybody does not mean no oppression. You can say : “No homosexual behavior, no communist action”, and it still is discrimination, even if you add “it’s not forbidden to be homosexual, but it is to act like one, so everyone is equal”. Refusing to see that this kind of shit targets a specific community is just bad faith or dumbness, you choose.

5. Some girls in highschool are adults (majority is 18 in France, you may reach it while highschool if born before june or if you repeat a year). The rule about clothes also applies to every people who works in the school : teachers, watchers, cooks, etc. Also you may be a kiddo and still make choices, especially in highscool. At that time i joined political and musical cultures, and was not told by my parents to do so. It was my choice and i was proud of it. I have friends who converted to islam when they were at highschool. Your religion may be your choice, and then it’s fine. The big problem is when it’s not. Why is it bad to look like everybody else around ? I dont know about you but at highschool i tried as hard as i could to come out from the mass. It’s okay not to be a sheep you know ? And it’s okay to be. What matters is that truly want to do what you do. Btw, common clothes are also banned if they are used for religious purpose. A girl switched her hijab for a bandana, and still got banned. It was confirmed by the highest juridical institution in the country, making it a case-law. They just want muslim to stop living how they want, that’s just it.

6. I did not say it should be ignored because it is a minority. I said the way of resolving the problem are not the same, and that the clothes ban was not a solution in France. In Egypt, the massive problem may require temporary massive solution, because helping each victim individually would be very long, and it is even harder to help them when being a victim is “normal” way of life. In France, the problem is very precise, so we could manage each case individually, and the fact that there is another “normal” way of life makes it easier to leave the one where you are forced to wear something.

7. Why a false equivalence ? My argument is “giving someone freedom to do X does not mean banning them from doing nonX”. You can replace X with aborting, wearing pants, showing your hairs, it’s always the same. If you missed this, well you missed a basic logical inference. All the rules you mentionned seems dumb to me, but they are made for specific places, run by specific people. It’s why they are ok, as long as their consequences are not serious. You can avoid entering in a church, in a mosque, in a factory, you can do pretty much the same in other places. But being banned from entering a school is a serious disadvantage, and that is precisely why we made a public school for everyone to come in. “But not if you’re a muslim girl (or arabic, we do not make a difference), because then you are of course indoctrinated by some man in your family, so we should have revenge on you instead of him” (at least that is still the only reason i can see to ban abaya which is still not a religious clothe but a cultural one, worn by non-muslims and not worn by all muslims).

You just make claim of back pedalling and false equivalence, without pointing to any of them appart from a basic and concrete logical equivalence, and then misunderstand half of my points, except the one you end up agreeing to. And then you are the one saying that it is boring. Come on, i dont ask you to start caring for muslims, i just want you to show you this is not protection but oppresion, it is not hard to conceive.

Okay, my bad, i did not think it would be necessary for me to add “it is dumb to think you can free someone by prohibiting things that they do”. In the case of slavery, you cannot free a slave by prohibiting him from being a slave. He would just be under control of his master AND illegal. That’s dumb. You need to change the mind and the power of the master, that’s where the problem lies. Here it is exactly the same : we need to change the mind of the men that force women to do anything, including wearing specific clothes, including all the “muslim” bullshit. You do not help drug addict by banning them from hospitals, you do not help a bleeding person by opening the wound even more, you do not help any victim of domestic abuse by banning them from school and public administration. You do not fight criminality by fighting the victims, you fight it by fighting the criminals. If you cannot understand that, i dont know what to say anymore.

I maintain that the domestic abuse violence IS beyond religion, even though very very strongly linked with it. Because, very simply, some muslim do not do this hijab bullshit, and leave people free. So it’s not the essence of this religion to control women. Religion is a part of the problem, but it does not mean you can solve it all by erasing religion. Because even if you manage to prevent religious bullshit (which has always meant violence against people from this religion), you did not solve the moral part, which will live onf and still force women to wear some piece of cloth. BUT, if you manage to solve the moral part by changing the mind of people and help everyone make a conscious choice, the religion will continue without this moral rule of “women should cover their hair”. That is why it seems dumb and dangerous to me to fight a religion when you should fight morals.

Egypt and France are also very different examples. In one, almost every girl is concerned by the forced hijab problem, while in France it’s only a minority. More than that, they are subject to hard discriminations and harassment in France, and hateful speech from 2/3 of the political spectrum. So while it may be a correct replacement of true freedom in specific countries, it is still less than true liberty, and still a way of oppressing muslim people in france.

On the last part, you did not understand me. You say “Muslim put the blame on the victim”, and at the same time, you put the blame on the victim of forced hijab, by saying they should not be able to wear it. I say both islamist and french republican talk the same way. They pretend to fight for women dignity, and then force them to do thing they dont want to (put their hijab on/off). Both are bastards to fight against, because liberty should be in the hand of women on this matter, not of some random male politician pretending to fight for them.

If there is a real problem is some women, forced by his father to wear a hijab, and it is banned in school, she will be twice as much a slave. Slave of his fucker of a father when at home, slave of his fucker of a state when at school. I maintain : this is not how you free people.

By the way, we have only spoke of women that are actually forced by someone to wear it. But there are a lot of women who wear it by choice, and banning it is bad for them. It may be okay in Egypt or any other country where women are not harassed because they wear it in everyday life, but in France it’s just more discrimination against them, and they already get enough.

And an extra thought, if you think that a woman cannot at the same time wear a hijab AND be a free woman, you may have a problem with what “free” means. When we allowed abortion, we did not prohibit giving birth. When we allowed women to have their own bank account, we did not prohibit common bank account in a couple. When we allowed women to wear pants, we did not prohibit dresses and skirts. It should be the same here : true freedom is to choose, not to be forced in any way.

I agree that any philosophy that aims to control other’s people life is wrong to me. Based on that, a state philosophy which says “You cannot dress like this or like this” is a wrong one too. I do not like religion, i do not like muslims religion. But i do not hate on muslim people either. I do not support their -generally and imo- fucked up morals, but i support their right to live, their right to dress how they want, even if it is to respect a tradition, their right to access education and knowledge. I also acknowledge that they are historically and currently being repressed by the government and our allegedly secular society, which has just found in muslims what they had found in jews past century. I think the place where muslim people have the most chances to experience liberty and critical thinking is in a free school, not in one which represses their way of life without any further reflection than “Religion bad”. I also think that where non-muslim people have the best chance to undo their prejudices against muslims is in a school where muslim folks can come and dress freely.

Okay, so i 100% percent agree that religion are wrong when they are forced upon anyone, and that religious state, and muslim state first, are worse oppresions than state alone. I also agree that abaya is not banned in universities, mb on this one (though we could argue that if you ban someone from highschool, they most likely wont be able to go to university).

I am against anyone who prohibits women to show their hair, and i’m against anyone who prohibits women to hide them. Both are bad, and both are worse when endorsed by oppressives systems that are states and morals. In Egypt, muslim state is worse than atheists. In France, “atheist” and islamophobic state is worse than muslims. (all of this is strictly my point of view) I strongly believe that it is dumb to think that you can free someone by prohibiting things, like you can free someone from drugs addictions by jailing them, free someone of war by invading them.

You say “Muslim bad because they blame women who do not wear hijab instead of blaming killer”, and i agree. But this argument sounds illogical here, because you would blame women who wear hijab instead of blaming people who force them.

Well it is not that simple. I agree on the point education and religion should be separated, but just on what children learn, not how they just dress.

But i maintain that catholic common folks do not have any specific attire. In christian cultures, people just wore basic attire, like long skirts or dress for women. But it was not specifically religious, it just was a blend of habits, morals and fashion, so cultural things. At some point, religious people, who tend to be conservative on those subjects, did advocate those clothes because they matched some vague ideal of decency of their religion. That’s why now conservative catholics still ask their daugther to were those clothes. And it is exactly the same thing with the abaya : a cultural fact only slightly mixed with religion, and in both case people who tend to wear just long dress to cover their body. It is not proselytism, it’s just cultural .

On a second note, i do not understand how anyone could support such a ban and still think they are doing a favor to these people. Do you think it will really help indoctrinated people to ban them from school and universities ? I mean, either

• the person wear it by choice, and then there’s no problem
• the person was told to, and then they should be welcomed in schools and universities more than other, to make them see other options exist.

It’s also very weird that religion should not tell people how to dress, but a state can. It’s weird that people say “you can be religious and do whatever you like”, but at the same time they consider that “you cannot be democratic/republican and do whatever you like, there are rules to follow”.

Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion, it’s included in morals, cultures. Some muslims do not give a fuck the way women dress. Some atheist do force the women in their lives to dress in specific ways (and this includes people of the conservative tradition). This is not something you change by hating on a religion which is just a medium for this, and which is already discriminated a lot, this is something you change by including people in a free society and help them make a real choice about it. It’s absurd to ban people of a free society because they’re not free.

Btw it’s a common thing in france to want to control how kids dress. Religious, culturals outfits are banned, but also “indecent” clothes like crop-top. I even remember talks about forcing girls to wear bras, so their nipples are not visible (though i did not remember any political consequence for the bra part, but the crop top was explicitly banned). In some schools, coming disguised on specific days could be banned, and punished. I experienced that, along with critics against outfits like torn pants. It’s just people disliking some clothes, but some of those people become headmaster, and they ban what they dont like. And some of them become minister, and they ban what they dont like in every schools. “Secularism” and “Republican values” are always mentionned then, like they are absolute truth that enable you to prohibit things and still think you’re fighting for liberty.

But yeah sure. Religion bad. Muslim bad. What muslim wear bad. Ban bad. When done, only good.

yes, i agree with, my experience was close to yours. I think the difference here is people are secular in general while system/dirigeants are less clear about it, and tend to fight harder when it’s a non-christian religion, though it was not the case when Christian religion was still in control

Well that’s a 50/50 on the “not targeting any single religion/group” since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience). And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it’s like a whole exception just for them. I also think that the abaya thing is a sign that they really fight against Muslims, since it is more cultural than religious,. But yeah, you’re kinda right in the sens that they just harass every other religions than cristians in general, and would probably ban a christian with a huge cross on a shirt too.

Do we really know ? Maybe they believe in our gods ? Maybe they believe in their god, and it’s the true one ?

I agree on the point that “they are racist/pedo because of the power they receive” is pretty much false in this situation.

But i would say that this is not the only meaning behind “Power corrupts”. (What follows is only a personnal opinion, there may be some wrong usage of terms or anything) To me, it also means that power corrupts our ways of thinking : believing in a strong power, even if you do not hold it, tends to makes this power more important than human lives or conditions. Like “Police is important, so it’s okay if some peoples get hurt to protect it”. In other words, the more you believe in power, the more it may become an end rather than a tool. This is were the corruption is to me.

I think that people get racist because they believe in some kind of great cause that should held power (like Homeland, Historical Background, Race, etc.). Then they consider normal to use power for this cause, even if it is against other people. Maybe it’s not the same thing for getting attracted to young people. But doing pedo crimes always involve some power in the very act of it, and to some extent in the decision making that led to it.

To sum it up, imo the hate and weird attraction of those cops basically mean that they think they have, or that they should have, a legitimate power over other people (minorities, kids, etc.). Even if it’s not the specific power that they got as cops that corrupted them, it is their belief in power more generally. (and as other said, the power they got as cops probably reinforced all of this, as a vicious circle).

I’m not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I’m not entirely sure of what i’m saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don’t know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

So first “professional” photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part “new” customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

So at first, they did not really stole painters’ jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

At that point, some of the painter’s client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn’t “dry” (don’t know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).

Okay, je crois que j’y vois plus clair, merci pour les explications.

Si j’ai bien compris, pour vous l’essence du boycott, c’est l’organisation et la revendication qu’il y a derrière, et pas le simple fait qu’une ou plusieurs personnes décide de ne plus acheter chez untel.

J’en ai effectivement un usage différent, notamment parce que je n’ai pas de terme alternatif qui me vienne pour désigner un arrêt collectif et soudain de la fréquentation d’un commerçant, mais aussi parce que je l’entends être utilisé comme ça autour de moi.

J’ai toujours du mal à comprendre l’intérêt de la distinction par contre, pas seulement parce que je l’utilise pas mais aussi parce que pour moi c’est pas le coeur du sujet. Boycott ou “simple” méfiance, dans les deux cas les gens se méfient, et c’est ça qui me semble être le problème : le boulanger a subi des attaques verbales et matérielles qui ont conduit à la fermeture de sa boulangerie faute de client.

(ceci dit, je comprends mieux si c’est juste un réflexe de grammairien énervé, ça m’arrive aussi fréquemment, c’est juste que comme j’utilise pas le mot dans le même sens, ça me paraît pas évident)

De l’ostracisation, c’est plus fort, non ? C’est quand une personne est exclue d’un groupe. Là, il n’a pas été exclu d’un groupe auquel il appartenait, il n’a pas été banni de la ville, on ne lui a pas interdit l’accès aux magasins. On a “juste” arrêté d’acheter ses produits, ce qui correspond au pendant pratique du boycott.

Pour la question de trancher, je ne vois pas trop sur quoi et pourquoi on aurait besoin de trancher. J’ai aussi l’impression que tu opposes différentes causes possibles (soit un harcèlement boycott / soit un mauvais comportement). Mais d’une part, les deux ne semblent pas incompatibles, et d’autre part, dans tous les cas, il y a une forme de boycott (ou d’ostracisation, si tu y tiens). Peu importe la raison, il semble y avoir eu de fait une baisse massive de fréquentation dans sa boulangerie.

Au final, je ne vois toujours pas pourquoi l’idée de boycott est remise en doute : déjà parce que ça semble évident que les gens ont arrêté de venir chez lui, et ensuite parce que l’alternative que tu proposes (l’ostracisation) me paraît équivalente au boycott. Ca ne change pas vraiment le problème qu’il ait été victime de boycott ou d’ostracisation, si ?

J’aime beaucoup la philosophie des sceptiques, accepter de tout remettre en cause, mais pour l’instant j’ai l’impression qu’on pose juste un doute comme ça, sans aller plus loin et je vois pas à quoi ça sert, j’avoue que ça me perturbe.

C’est cool que ton commentaire soit nuancé, effectivement c’est des sujets tendus et on a tendance à lire ce qu’on craint. Par contre, y’a un aspect que je ne m’explique toujours pas, même en relisant.

Si je comprends bien, tu avances :

• qu’il n’y aurait pas eu de boycott, et que ça ne suffirait donc pas à expliquer la situation, il faudrait un autre élément (simple supposition de ta part, sans accuser qui que ce soit de mensonge ou autre)
• que se plaindre de racisme suscite la méfiance des gens (en le présentant simplement comme un fait, et même un fait malheureux)

Pour moi, ces deux éléments ne sont pas vraiment compatibles : la méfiance des gens constitue un boycott en soi (on peut en discuter, peut-être pas au sens strict de boycott organisé, mais en tout cas, du point de vue du boulanger, le résultat et le ressenti est le même). J’ai du mal à saisir comment on peut douter du boycott si on est convaincu de la méfiance des gens.

Mais je ne suis pas certain d’avoir bien compris ton commentaire : est-ce que j’ai loupé un truc ?

Pour avoir fait les JMJ il y a quelques années, j’ai bien ressenti ce côté conservateur, et surtout du côté des français-es, les gens d’autres pays que j’ai rencontrés étaient vraiment plus cool. Après, j’étais parti avec un contingent de cathos orléanais-es (donc bien bien cathos), et il y avait sans doute la barrière de la langue avec les autres nationalités.

Mais quand même, ça colle bien avec l’explication de Raison du Cleuziou : j’ai eu le sentiment que les jeunes polonais-es, qui vivent dans une société hyper religieuse, tenaient moins aux traditions que les français-es avec qui j’étais parti.

Par contre, ce qui est marrant c’est que c’est aussi une grosse expérience collectiviste : tout le monde a la même nourriture, les mêmes conditions de vie, on marche des kilomètres en groupe pour dormir par terre avec des centaines de milliers de personnes, etc. Et personne pour râler que “C’est littéralement le communisme bla bla bla”

La religion est rigide par essence

Je ne suis pas si sûr, surtout si on ne se centre pas sur la religion catholique. Pour avoir été chez cathos et protestants, ces derniers sont quand même beaucoup plus souples sur énormément de sujets, et la forme de cathé que j’ai expérimenté coté protestant était vraiment différente.

Même, elle rassemble les deux aspects (ludique et pédagogique) que tu sembles opposer pour le cathé catho : on lisait des textes religieux, on en discutait ensemble, ça partait même en débat philosophique parfois. Et d’un autre côté, on faisait des créations, notamment créer un spectacle de Noël, avec des sketchs qui parodient des passages de la bible ou des trucs du style.

Et tout le reste était comme ça, moins dogmatique et plus terre-à-terre (sans dire que c’est forcément mieux, juste que c’est différent). Le culte (équivalent de la messe) était pas forcément fixe dans son déroulé, il y avait parfois des interventions qui se rajoutaient, des passages que le pasteur enlevait, etc. Par contre, ce qui était plus fixe, c’était qu’à la sortie, il y avait du thé et du café et tout le monde pouvait discuter.

Bref, j’y ai senti énormément moins de rigueur, moi qui était déjà non-croyant je m’y suis senti à ma place et j’avais beaucoup moins l’impression qu’on m’imposait quoi que ce soit. Et pourtant, la foi des gens là-bas était très prégnante, il y avait un esprit de communauté très fort.

Je pense que pour le coup, le catholicisme est beaucoup plus rigide (c’est même pour ça que le protestantisme existe), et sans trop m’y connaître je dirais que c’est similaire à d’autres courants, genre christianisme orthodoxe, islam, judaïsme. Et qu’à l’inverse, d’autres religions sont moins guindées, genre protestantisme, hindouisme, bouddhisme (encore une fois, j’y connais vraiment rien à part catho et protestants, c’est juste mes impressions).

Ooook, merci de l’explication :D !

Et encore quelques vies brisées pour des morales à deux balles, ça me file la gerbe

Question secondaire, mais c’est quoi un tanky du FN ?

Ca donne l’impression que c’est de l’IA en tout cas !