The main problem with this subject is that the abaya is not a religious clothing strictly speaking. It is not enforced by any muslim sacred text, a lot of muslim women do not wear it, whereas non-muslim women wear it. It is rather typical from the arabic culture than from the muslim religion (it originated from bedouin culture in the first place).

Here in France people are mad about secularism because of an old hate of Christian Church, but nowadays it is rather used to discriminate jews and muslims. (At school, yarmulke and headscarf are banned, but christian crosses are allowed if they're not too big. Every day i saw people in school with christian crosses around the neck or as earrings, and no one bothered them, while they were harassing girls with a headscarf.)

Imo here the government is just creating a new debate on a stupid question, just to scare people about muslims and give hard right politicians a bone to chew, as they always do. While everyone talks and is afraid about what teenagers could wear, people talk less about the other laws they are passing, for having more control over Internet or whatever they want.

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).

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge's approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to "protect minor"

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people's identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like "Pirating contents harms artistic creation" (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

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.

I see what you mean, in your case as well as mine, Reaper is far more powerful and so far more adequate to our needs But people do not always search for powerful software. Sometimes they only want something easy to learn, with only basic tasks but well performed and entirely free. When you have these requirements, Audacity is better

Thank you captain !

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

Ooooh ok, got it. Thank you very much for explaining !

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as "ironic". Like someone complains "I'm tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care", and someone replies "Im' tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care". I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment's logic to itself.

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).

Hey, noobie question here, I dont know much about fediverse, so don't mind correct me :

Is it a good thing ?

I first had the feeling that it ain't, but everybody in the comment section seems happy with it. My knowledge of the Fediverse is this :

• Federation aims to decentralization
• The aim beyond decentralization is to prevent one entity (like Reddit) to have too much power over the content created and shared.
• When Meta said they wanted to connect Threads to the fediverse, people seemed concerned and/or opposed to it. It seemed coherent to me as the federation with Meta was seen as a danger for decentralization, because a big entity could have access to the content. (I feel like I probably misunderstood that part though).

Now, I (personnally) consider that any state is as a big entity as big companies, and that we should feel as much concerned about their power over content and informations. This is of course debatable and maybe the origin of my misunderstanding.

So here's my true question : do i miss any point in this, that could make me understand why you consider it a good thing ?

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

I didn't watch tat much movies, but maybe you're right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I'm also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it's more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I'm wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by "capturing hearts and minds" if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.

I'm not an expert on how the social media make money, but from what i know it is created upon the information they gather (either personnal information or content, that they can then sell to advertisers or thing like that). So the more data they collect, the more they are able to sell i guess ? And i think that because fediverse already generates data for free (and will do so more and more), people in the business of selling this kind of data are eager to get access it Only my humble opinion, not sure at all if this is theway it works

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating "Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them" and "Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us" ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it's funny it's the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like "making a show of being hated -> attention seeker". But ok, let's forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that's the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It's very simple really. Either you don't get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is "not" violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a "like" system than a "like/dislike" : there isn't really a way to disagree with a statement (the "angry" emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

Well, let's take it as a personal opinion then. Now here's mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.

Eh, what you say is interesting actually. Still, imo it does not change any of what has been said prior to that, you still made a scene to complain about people "making a scene", and you still complained "we have the right to talk" while defending someone saying trans should stop talking.

This being said and put apart, i can identify two points in your comment.

1. You do not think people should care about trans rights, because in your opinion they are not threatened, and they should be considered as anyone else.
2. You have a huge problem with children having access to medical transition. (Not said in a bad way, but given that half your message is about this very precise point of the whole more diverse notion that are transgender and transsexuality, and that it is "all (you) have to say about", it really seems the main, if not the only, issue for you).

For the 1st point :

• There are two types of violence. let's call them blind violence and targeted violence. First one can strike anyone, anywhere, both you and trans people. Second one can only strike targeted peoples and communities, like trans, and maybe groups of people you belong to, or are considered to belong to (religions, origins, etc.). It's very difficult to prevent blind violence, by it's very nature. But targeted violence is more easy to prevent, precisely because it's easier to identify potential targets and potential criminals. Targeted violence is also more massive. That's why people try to care about communities which are targets of violence, as trans are, and as many other are, sadly.
• You make a difference between trans rights and your own rights. What about that trans rights are your rights ? You have the right to change gender, you have the right to have medical help about that, and so on. Trans do not have more rights, you have the same as them. Just because you do not need it does not mean it's not your rights. You don't know where your life will lead you, maybe you'll need it at some point.
• You seem to have a specific definition of "diverse", which i don't understand. I cannot really guess why you do not find Lemmy "diverse". If you consider that "diverse" means a place where you can say you don't like trans, well first you actually can, and then it's not really what i would call diverse. To me, diversity is different from freedom of speech. Diversity -> you can produce "positive" things, meaning they have a meaning on their own. Freedom of speech -> you can produce "negative" things, meaning you can disagree with someone/something. To sum it up : imo criticism isnt diversity, it's more on the freedom of speech spectrum. And in any case, you can criticize a lot here on Lemmy.
• I dont really know which are the "issues we should be up in arms about". If your true goals are freedom, happiness and healthiness, well the actual fate of trans people should be your concern, because they are the target of specific violence so more violence than the average (happiness--), the right of switching genders is at stake in many countries (freedom--) and their handling by health professional is also in danger (healthiness--). There are others matters that are as important, and we can even say more important, i would agree on that. But why on earth would you argue that everything is going fine for trans people and that they should shut up, while on the same time saying you are defending happiness and freedom of speech ?

For the 2nd point :

• As i said, it seems very specific. Kid surgery is a hot topic, even in trans communities, and that is not at all what is the most important in trans struggle. So it seems a bit unfair to focus that much on it.
• You should not call medical transition "cosmetic surgery", because it's not what it is, it's actually considered therapy, as it is meant to prevent bad effects on your health. Your body is not the only thing to consider, your mental health matters too. If you can help a kid avoiding suicide and madness thanks to medicine, it is therapy, not cosmetic surgery. (You can be against this kind of therapy though, but you dont need it to be considered cosmetic surgery to be against).
• As i said before, all kids remain equal in rights in this case. they all get access to the same therapies, and all are banned from cosmetic surgery.
• One of the problem people try to avoid by changing sex is gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the fact of having mental issues due to your body. So it is both a physical and a psychological problem, your body is in the heart of the problem, so changing it is one of the solutions.
• Still, you can say that for any ethics reasons you should not change a kid's sex. I do not agree but yeah, sure, that's your opinion. Is this one disagreement really enough for you to defend that trans should stop talking about their issues, that they are the real problem and that you are the good guy by telling them to shut up ? I mean, from a logical point of view, it's obviously wrong, you cannot pass from one to the other. But i even struggle to understand how a single point like this can make you that much tired of hearing about trans. I must confess that i strongly suspect that though this is all that you have to say, it is not all you think, and that you have many more disagreement that you wish to keep for yourself.

Im sorry my answer is so long, i already shortened it as much as i could. Sorry if this a problem for you. Two things i want to acknowledge "quickly" :

• Being trans is not something you want or choose, as a lot of what you said seems to imply. It's not just what you think, it's what you are, and you have very little power about it, like our cis identity (i presume you are cis, sorry if not). This plus the fact that our societies are more hostile towards trans people makes it logical that they should deserve a specific medical care, because they cannot change how they feel by the only power of their will.
• All what you said is your point of view, and i respect that. I advise you to try and consider though, that it might hurt peoples. Not a lot of course, but that's the problem with systemic hate : even little and peaceful disagreements, when put together, can become a huge moral burden. Of course the solution is not for you to shut up. Continue to express yourself. But if you just think about how it can hurt people, i truly believe that it can help you expressing your point of view while caring for the people it could hurt, and so making it less hurtful. And if you feel too overwhelmed by anything else, or too lazy to think about this, well, i happily admit that it's not a huge deal, there are bigger problems out here.

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.

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, 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.

Alright alright, promoting killing of people based on their country without bothering giving a reason, i see what type of asshole im talking to

Okay you now have stated a correct reason. I would add two things that can help you refine your way of seeing things :

• It's probably best to say 'kill Russian invaders' or even 'kill invaders', since the problem is invaders and not Russian (I mean, killing random civilians in Moscow wont help Ukraine, but it's still what you said is good)
• Insisting on killing is still weird. Killing soldiers is not the goal of fighting an invasion back, it is one way to achieve the real goal : all Russians soldiers out of Ukraine. If that's what you're talking about, i advise you to say 'fighting' instead of 'killing', so it's not mistaken for a random bloodlust against a country.

Now I got to apologize if we agree on all those points, I mistook your shortened thinking for blatant stupidity, which would be my bad

Happy to hear this. That's the danger of implied things, your message ends up way worse when you dont say them out loud

Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it's really reasonable.

For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it's not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

I'm confused too, but my interpretation so far is that some people are choosing piracy because they want to get a fast and easy access to the things they're looking for, and that the protest is making things harder so they are just mad because it's not easy anymore

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.

Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that's probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)

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.

Yeah, like it never happened thar US weapons send somewhere to fight Russians were then used for even worse purposes Besides, is killing Russians a good thing? I mean fighting back the invasion is necessary, and it will cause deaths in russians troops but we should wish for a minimum of casualties, we are talking about human lives

Im with you ! I know and understand people don't like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)