'Non balneabile': What are the face covering bans across Europe?
www.euronews.com
A group of Muslim women wearing modest beach wear were harassed by a group of women in northern Italy claiming that they can’t go in the water with their clothing.
  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    I think a person should be able to wear whatever they want, fundamentally, but I’m confident that many of these women didn’t choose to cover up their whole life.

    Why don’t you go talk to some Muslim women and actually seek their opinions on these things instead of just assuming what they want?

    As more people come into the west seeking something better, they need to abandon some of their culture that is retrogressive. Burkas as retrogressive.

    No, actually. If they’ve had to come to the West because the West keeps bombing the shit out of their homes, they owe the West jack shit. Whether or not the Islamic community wants to change some of its cultural practices to adapt to the West is for Muslims to decide and Muslims only.

    This is just sexpat white saviorism 101 wrapped up with progressive language.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          2·
          1 year ago

          It’s possible to be right for the wrong reasons. Don’t let what “chuds” think define your moral code.

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            7·
            1 year ago

            Chuds, like broken clocks, are occasionally correct. The key is that if you think you’re looking at a broken clock, you need to check that the clock is working.

            We do that by looking at how we got to that conclusion that resembles a chud conclusion and examining the differences between our conclusion and theirs as well.

            In this case, the user I was replying to clearly had not talked to many (or any) Muslim women and is simply assuming that women don’t like Islamic clothing because it looks uncomfortable. By that same reasoning, we should also ban neckties and high heels.

            If the user got to the same conclusion as the chuds using such poor reasoning, I think it’s valid to point out that they might be chud adjacent.

    • Chipthemonk@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      The west is not some evil entity as you make them out to be. Sure, the west has done some bad shit, but it is far more progressive than many Islamic states that actively enforce misogyny.

      It seems to be in vogue these days, especially with people that lean left, to shit on the US and the West. I find it unfortunate that so many privileged people in the west shit think it’s so cool to make their own culture out to be the aggressors and bad guys. They think that, by describing the west in a negative light, they can elevate themselves out of it or something.

      I agree that banning shit is not a good idea, fundamentally, but when a culture brings in dumb shit, people should resist that dumb shit and adopt the good stuff. That’s the idea of a melting pot.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Most of the West by land area is built upon the graveyard of peoples slaughtered for their land and on the backs of people enslaved for their labor, but yeah that’s just “some bad shit”.

        How about you Westoids deal with your own litany of unspeakable crimes against humanity by giving back your stolen lands and paying full restitution to the surviving descendants of your victims before you get on your high horse about how the Islamic world you’ve continuously bombed for the last two decades isn’t “progressive” enough.

        Maybe people wouldn’t have to flee their homes and bring their “dumb shit” with them if you didn’t keep blowing their shit up.

        • Chipthemonk@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Ah the classic stolen lands argument. You seem to think that the lands were widely populated with a dense civilization by people that had a concept of land ownership. You might be surprised to know that the americas were not densely populated in the slightest and most of the people who migrated to the americas through Siberia (the “natives,” who are actually just early migrants from the Middle East like all early Homo sapiens) don’t always have a concept of land ownership because they lived nomadic lives.

          Your arguments are juvenile.

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Ahh I see. So genocide is a-okay as long as the victims weren’t densely populated and didn’t think of land in line with the European sense of ownership.

            Really, if they didn’t want to be brutally murdered, there should have been more of them and they should have created bits of paper saying who owned what land.

            Makes sense.

            • Chipthemonk@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Your argument is in fashion, but it’s simply not the reality. I suppose your argument is so popular and widespread because the history curriculum has not done a good job educating people.