UraniumBlazer

Awww.... Good for u mate.. good for u....

Ehh... Doesn't prove this by any means. For example, a type of clothing called a "kurta" is worn by Hindus and Muslims both. In religious ceremonies in both religions, attendees usually wear it. Now, this doesn't mean that the garment suddenly is a religious garment, does it? It just is a cultural garment that is usually worn in the Indian subcontinent.

Now, even if the abaya is a religious garment, the points that I mentioned above still apply. What if I started a new religion called "Religion of yellow clothes"? Let's say my religious clothes are all yellow clothes. Does France ban everyone from wearing yellow clothes now because of me?

Okay, let's look at several arguments that have been presented here in favor of this law:

• "Display of religion must be banned for a secular learning experience": Firstly, how do you even define "display of religion"? If I say "Merry Christmas", is it a display of religion? If I grow my hair out, is that display of religion? If I wear a steel bracelet, is that display of religion? Because the last two actions are actually associated with Sikhism. If I wear the Mormons' holy underwear, is that display of religion? If I say "Jesus fkin Christ" when I hear about a fascist law like this, is that banned too now? Secularism is respecting all religious classifications and allowing them to coexist. Secularism is NOT forcing everyone to look and behave as if they are in the same religious classification.
• "The abaya dress isn't even French/Respect the culture of the country that you are in:"

Individuals who say this seem to have what is known as the "conventionalist" ethical framework. This framework has maaany problems. However, even if we look at this law from the point of view of this framework, it becomes unethical. The official national motto of France is "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity". This law seems to contradict all three of these principles.

It contradicts "liberty", as it literally permits the government to tell its citizens what they can and cannot wear on their body. Abayas are not even inherently religious. It is like the government banning polo t-shirts because they are "Christian".

The law contradicts "equality" as it unequally affects Muslims and Sikhs, as their religious expression involves the use of clothing more than other religions. Sure, harmful clothing must not be permitted (like the knives that Sikhs are supposed to carry according to their religion). Abayas are not harmful in any way. Hence, they do not fall into this category.

Finally, this law contradicts "fraternity", as fraternity literally means "brotherhood" in this context. "No matter how different we are, we are still brothers with a goal to work for the people of France" is what this implies. Banning something as harmless as clothing attributed to a given religion is not a sign of brotherhood.

• "Just have school uniforms": Clothing is one of the most important mediums of expression for humans. All humans have their own individual identities. The goal of schools should not be to make Stormtroopers. Rather, it should be to make students better versions of themselves. Having school uniforms goes strongly against this idea. One may argue that this also goes against the idea of "liberty".

• "Did you know that Abayas and Hijabs are the result of an authoritarian religion?" Firstly, no. Abayas have nothing to do with religion. Sure, it is possible that a parent(s) may force their child to wear a particular type of clothing that aligns with their religious beliefs. In that case, the school can provide support to such students. However, what if a child themself wish to wear a particular type of clothing? What's the harm in that? This argument for the ban is similar to saying "some individuals are buttfucked without their consent. Therefore, let's ban buttfucking".

I'm atheist and socialist. I'm sad to see some of my fellow socialists arguing for the ban as well. Atheists have and are presently being persecuted in many countries in the world. By supporting the persecution of other religious classifications, we are essentially doing exactly what is being done to us. There is no moral difference between us and the individuals persecuting us in this case.

Dayum this episode was SO GOOD!

• Great Huyang vs assassin droid fight scene.
• Great duel between Ahsoka and the Inquisitor (and thank god he wasn't someone significant as the fan theories suggested). The way Ahsoka ended the dude was SATISFYING! I've always found the rotating inquisitor lightsabers quite annoying.
• Great duel between Sabine and Shin! Loved how she used the mando anti force tricks from Rebels.
• And ohmygod the duel between Ahsoka and Baylon was magnificent! The way they were sizing each other up in the beginning to the actual fight (which thankfully actually felt like a gritty swordfight) was all amazing.

About the last scene: This is so interesting and weird! Why did Anakin have Vader's Saber? Why did he say "Didn't expect to see you so soon" to Ahsoka? Why was he expecting her? Why did the Imperial March play at the same time? I don't think anyone pulled her in, simply because we don't see anyone near her. I rewatched this part, and confirmed that Anakin appeared later (he wasn't there when she was looking around). I believe that she "became one with the force". Maybe this is what happened to Yoda, Obiwan and Luke when they died? Maybe this is why Anakin showed up with his Vader lightsaber to show how he was "post-Vader Anakin"? Maybe the Imperial March played to signify the villains' victory over Ahsoka? I dunno....

Fair... Although in my mind, I was thinking of a fight as an escalated disagreement. Disagreements are fine. In fact, they are inevitable. In this context, I define a "fight" as "a disagreement involving raised voices, shouting, cursing and even violence at times".

It just seems that we share slightly different definitions when we refer to a "fight". Either ways, the advice "don’t forget that you love the people hearing your words" is extremely useful in such cases. Let's hope that we can live by it to the maximum :)

I can never understand how a grown ass adult (heck, two grown ass adults) can fight in front of a child.... I rlly hope we become better parents when the time comes...

Right.... So thinking that the Tzar's invasion of Ukraine is unjustified is Nazi shit. Thinking that the Holodomor was a genocide is Nazi shit. Cuz that's what ur tankie buddies called me. This is what OP was referencing to.

A fr moment

Uk... Stuff like this is what makes me livid when I come across tankies (Lemmy is unfortunately littered by them). Anyways, glad that your family made out to a better place! Cheers :)

I saw a very good summarization of this by a Russian YouTuber. According to him, "While the west does have different sources of propaganda, Russia (and I would add China here) has monopolized state propaganda."

Of course. The millions of people (including children) that died due to the Great Chinese famine, the Holodomor, The North Korean famine, etc. were all Nazis. Fuck them... they were too skinny to be real communists anyways.... /s

Dayum... That's shameful for Denmark. As for the German far right, polls tell many different stories. The German government is still very democratic. What about Canada? You also accused them of fascism.