this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
581 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39491 readers
2203 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Taliban have banned windows in homes that allow views of areas where Afghan women might be seen, citing concerns over "obscene acts."

This new decree mandates blocking or obstructing such windows in existing and new buildings, continuing the group's systemic repression of women since regaining control of Afghanistan in August 2021.

The Taliban's policies have included bans on women's education, public appearances, and voices.

Critics, including the U.N., warn these actions dangerously erode human rights, while activists call out global inaction over the ongoing oppression.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Resol@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And just when I thought the Taliban's laws against women were too extreme already, they decide to do this. They quite literally can stoop way lower than I thought.

I feel so bad. Thanks for ruining my first day of 2025, Taliban.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

Next step: The Screwfly Solution

[–] Tin@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When do we get to the part of the episode where James T Kirk, prime directive be damned, finds the meglomaniacal computer controlling these men, and blows it up?

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 days ago

Have you any idea how it feels to be a fembot... living in a manbot's manputer's world?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago

It's Newsweek, but this does sound like a thing they'd do.

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Taliban doesn’t represent our religion Tbh

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They may not solely represent a religion but they definitely represent it. Mormons also represent a part of a religion. As do crusaders. And the Klan. And people who circumcise women. And the child rapists in the Catholic church.

You don't get to claim only nice things are representative and bad things aren't as if religion as a power structure isn't the core problem in and of itself.

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Exactly, kind of. Religious fundamentalism is a fascinating concept, because basically it is exactly that - taking the fundamental ideas of the religion and using that interpretation to derive perspective and subsequent law or policy.

In a very real, significant way it's a better representation of the religion than the watered down, culturally accepted version that moderate religious individuals will say is the 'real' version.

Orthodox is fundamentalism, and anything otherwise is not the actual religion, even if that is the majority, like modern Christianity.

[–] herinaceus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

I don't disagree at all. It's kind of like how the incoming US regime isn't representative of all Jesus-people.

That said, it seems like Islamic and Chirstian groups hold people captive in the worst ways imaginable, using every dirty psychological trick ever thought of.

A "family" memeber has used a proxy-person to suggest I go to a turn-you-not-gay-anymore camp, as an adult... I have also experienced a "polite" conversation with a Musilm about the Quaran, over a meal. I pointed out my attempt to read it in high school in a book store, and surprise that it was almost all just "moral" rules. He said it was something like a guide book, and decided to inform me on how many lashes one receives as a gay person, before they're "put to death." What a confusing way to try to convert an unapologetically half-gay sketpic...

All I'm trying to express is that community and having a group/family of people that can rely on and relate to each other is very important to maintain sanity thru life, but it can come at a severe cost if the group is religious. Even budhist groups can become violent, so I don't think it's generally based on specific religions, as much as the microcosm within the book(s) club that you're in.

I always hope religious people can escape, or at least glean something helpful from their beliefs, and not end up closed off from other people, and the ability to think on their own terms. Thank you for reading my Ted Talk lol.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'd argue that they represent the word of the Quran more closely than moderate Muslims.

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The taliban just takes the words of the quran wayy more strictly the Quran isn't even strict at I all i would argue most of it is designed to protect you

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

If they are taking a very strict stance, it means they are deviating the least.

It's regrettable that the most fundamentalist groups of any religion produce the most suffering, but that's what happens when a book promotes/endorses/encourages bigotry.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 202 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey Taliban, here’s an idea: ban eyes for men, problem solved.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 125 points 1 week ago
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 143 points 1 week ago (4 children)

How is this not The Onion?

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 55 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Because this is the bad place.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 122 points 1 week ago (7 children)

They can't be seen, can't speak, women's voices cannot be heard (even by other women), and now they can't have windows.

At this point, if they have such a problem, leave the men inside in a windowless box and let women do the work. It's men getting a half chub because they heard of someone thinking of a woman. Their obsession with women is so fucking weird. It's like they're the boogy man or some shit.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 98 points 1 week ago

All these bans make it easier for abuse and violence against women and girls to proliferate

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] pooberbee@lemmy.ml 108 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is 2025 the year of the Linux desktop?

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is the best usage of this phrase I've ever seen

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Damn for a country that hates gay people, they REALLY hate looking at women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] viking@infosec.pub 57 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Had to do a double take that I'm not in The Onion community.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (1 children)

just like Lemmy, the Taliban doesn't like Windows

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Soooooo, instead of educating young boys and men about respect and decency, they instead force women to cover themselves completely, and now remove windows from buildings, because young boys and men can’t be trusted to be basic human beings?

Yeah, you know you’re doing it right when you have to force other people to bend to your degeneracy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Aside from the obvious egregious human rights violations here, there's going to be a lot of health repercussions for this.

Not getting enough, or any sunlight can cause vitamin d deficiency which can cause a whole host of problems. Including if a woman breastfeeds without getting enough vitamin d her baby will also be deficient. Get ready for a bunch of children who are going to be at a high risk for developing rickets.

I guess that's the price they're willing to pay to oppress women?

[–] JohnOliver@feddit.dk 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Republicans taking notes... 📝📝📝📝📝📝

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I dunno. Banning seeing women. Seems kinda gay.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ronflex@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This just in: the taliban are afraid of women

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago

Taliban are more afraid of women than /r/incel

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why not remove Muslim men's eyes so they can't see women?

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's the other guy that said that, the taliban follows a different guy who wandered about a desert.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago

TBF they like that guy too. And the second guy didn't suggest this - it's all them and their weird homoerotic incel energy.

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Those insecure little boys really are afraid of women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Those guys sure love banning things. They're gonna lose track of all the things they've banned, unless they hire someone to tally all their bans.

Unless of course there's a ban on that too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why stop at windows? I mean, doors are even bigger openings.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›