Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody? - Part 2 -

[evolved2]

Should certain clothing such as any specifically Muslim attire be banned from workplaces, to avoid the possibility of it being viewed as support for Palestinians?

When that attire is part of someone's culture, no. Something tells me two young white women aren't wearing middle eastern style clothing for comfort, yeah?

Should jewellery be banned from workplaces, to avoid what looks like or are crosses or Star of Davids being worn?
Should rainbows be banned from workplaces or from sale at stores to avoid the possibility of supporting LGBTQ+?

False equivalence.

Should a employer be able to discriminate in who they serve based on their religious beliefs, but employees be unable to observe their religious beliefs just to maintain an income to survive?

False equivalence.

 

[CM86]

When that attire is part of someone's culture, no. Something tells me two young white women aren't wearing middle eastern style clothing for comfort, yeah?

So anti-Islam sentiment is a racial thing?


When we think of Muslims, we don't think of young white women, we think of Middle Eastern people.

False equivalence.

False equivalence.

I wasn't meaning to make an equivalence or to discount your arguments.
I was more just putting down my thoughts around this topic.

 

[evolved2]

Your employer is owed your service when you are at work. You are also - ostensibly - an adult; you need to be able to conduct yourself as an adult.

While this means that you owe your superiors and the company you work for a reasonable amount of give - while the system lived within is capitalist in nature, it is next to unavoidable not to - you do not owe your boss or the owner your enthusiasm or anything more than a professional attitude and your labour.

Your boss when making decisions about you is not going to be your friend.

Sure. At the same time, relationships with employers are symbiotic. Your employer goes down, guess who goes down with the ship?

Sure, because those who own capital are extremely thin skinned.

We had discussion about comedians upsetting lefties here awhile ago. The label "thin skinned" could apply to groups beyond capitalists.

I'd also like to remind you that there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism; some people of a left wing persuasion make their deal with the devil every single day, because if they don't there's not really all that many options save violence to change the status quo.

You're therefore a capitalist.

Sure.

Which is a valid position to take, but one that is inherently exploitative. You're either happy to belong to the owner class, or you're aspiring to become one; there's an inbuilt acceptance of exploitative hierarchy that comes with it.

Hierarchical structures in society are unavoidable. Your position as a mod gives you power over me.

Why are you hiring an antivaxer to work for Pfizer or Moderna?

Last I checked - depending on your role within what could be a pharmaceutical business - there was extensive screening and recruitment processes in place, including verification of study and whatnot, during recruiting. Do you think it's a credible thing for that screening to have not picked up on antivax tendencies?

I didn't know those employees were anti-vaxx before they lost their jobs for refusing a jab; they probably didn't know they were "anti-vaxx" before COVID either. I've also worked in pharma with someone who had strong opinions against the pharma industry.

While I don't relate to either position, I don't care what someone believes if it doesn't interfere with their work.

I'd be more concerned if my employer asked for my position on controversial issues than if they asked me to stop supporting a side while on the clock.

Is it also not enough to have your business state: "This person's views are not the views of our business, and are potentially dangerous to the health of our consumers"?

Seems unworkable to me. Why should a woman who's had an abortion feel intimidated by a pro-life protestor colleague?

As stated earlier, I think society is let down by the class of libertarians we have. They're only defenders of freedom of speech, privacy or the various government and corporate overreaches within a modern context when that specific breach is happening to them; if it happens to someone they disagree with, it's a shrug. There's not a single one of them prepared to take a stand on principle alone.

I'm more concerned about the left side of politics trying to play unfair; wanting special privilege for their side.

I would have thought it would be in the interest of the left to support the right to protest, yet we saw some posters laughing when the cops were targeting protesters during COVID.

I found that interesting.

Why?

Can people not be trusted to be adult?

What does it mean to be an adult? I can enjoy robust debate here because those I engage with aren't a captive audience. People can't escape at a workplace.

... I do have another question, although it'll take some time to get there.

Manners and ettiquette are outgrowths of medieval and feudal times, in which manners and courtly process and highly structured rules governing interactions between people of noble and common ranks were the difference between getting a knife between your ribs or a noose round your kneck. They were built to preserve and enshrine hierarchies of power within those societies, and continue to do that self-same job right now.

The idea that people cannot be trusted to solve their own problems or to sift through employee opinion to find the opinion of the owner - why does a business even need to possess an opinion on social, political or religious issues, anyway? - is taken more or less precisely from the notion of a divine rule of kings.

So, my question is this: knowing that these rules were built by kings and their obsequents to maintain their position within society - knowing that it was always and continues to be propaganda - do you still feel those rules are necessary to the functioning of a workplace?

The problem is that the worldview of those within a capitalist system see the way the owners of capital operate and behave as the ideal, something to aspire towards. A boycott is nothing more than a group seeking to do the precise same behaviour as an owner would do; seeking to hurt another businesses bottom line by virtue of depriving them of sales.

Thinking that what's good for the goose is good for the gander is equivalent to two wrongs making a right.

Forcing people into compliance is hardly civilised, and yet we do it constantly within this framework. There's no knife to your throat at a Maccas checkout, but 'Do you want fries with that?' is asked regardless.

I don't feel that's relevant tbh, and agree with sr36 .

It's strange that you, one of the more polite posters on the srp, is taking that stance.

 

[evolved2]

So anti-Islam sentiment is a racial thing?


When we think of Muslims, we don't think of young white women, we think of Middle Eastern people.

You're grasping at straws here. There's no indication in the article that the women are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin. They're clearly wearing the clothing in support of Palestine.

I wasn't meaning to make an equivalence or to discount your arguments.
I was more just putting down my thoughts around this topic.

From my perspective, religious freedom and the freedom to live free from religion are very important.

 

[CM86]

You're grasping at straws here. There's no indication in the article that the women are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin. They're clearly wearing the clothing in support of Palestine.

From my perspective, religious freedom and the freedom to live free from religion are very important.

Well then someone's support for Palestine shouldn't be viewed as a religious attack or support for religious extremists like HAMAS.
And it shouldn't be influenced by Israel.


I'm just saying that you seem to have pointed out the common view that two young white women probably aren't Muslim.
Which supports what I believe is common knowledge, that anti-Islam sentiment is often a racial thing disguised as anti-religion.

But it's not part of this discussion.


From what I understand they're not religious and it was done purely as a show of support for persecuted Palestinians.
I don't believe they should have lost their source of income because of it.
I think it shows a sign of a more radicalised Western world, with a reduction in secularism.

 

[ShanDog]

Black Star Pastry sells Pride Month cupcakes.

They seem fine with controversial displays of support.

In some parts of society it would be more controversial to not sell them.

 

[ShanDog]

You're therefore a capitalist.

Which is a valid position to take, but one that is inherently exploitative. You're either happy to belong to the owner class, or you're aspiring to become one; there's an inbuilt acceptance of exploitative hierarchy that comes with it.

Counterpoint for those who may be worried they are a bad person and didn't realise it -

Nah.

 

[sr36]

Should certain clothing such as any specifically Muslim attire be banned from workplaces, to avoid the possibility of it being viewed as support for Palestinians?

Context matters. In similar examples the uproar would be on the other side of the fence for cultural appropriation.

I don't think it's disputed that it was a political statement. I think that everyone has a red line. I doubt there'd be any uproar if it was a swastika. The question is where should employers be able to draw a line regarding political statements from staff when representing that company. Israeli flag in Coburg or anywhere else? Palestinian flag in Caulfield or anywhere else?

 

[CM86]

Context matters. In similar examples the uproar would be on the other side of the fence for cultural appropriation.

I don't think it's disputed that it was a political statement. I think that everyone has a red line. I doubt there'd be any uproar if it was a swastika. The question is where should employers be able to draw a line regarding political statements from staff when representing that company. Israeli flag in Coburg or anywhere else? Palestinian flag in Caulfield or anywhere else?

I do agree with the overall point. And the context is needed

The 'thing' being promoted or supported is incredibly important.

What do you think they were they supporting/promoting?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Is wearing Nike shoes a political statement?

 

[CM86]

In some parts of society it would be more controversial to not sell them.

Do you mean if they just didn't sell 'pride' related items.
Or if they refused to sell or support Pride related things? (due to religious reasons etc).

 

[ShanDog]

Do you mean if they just didn't sell 'pride' related items.
Or if they refused to sell or support Pride related things? (due to religious reasons etc).

I was being a little hyperbolic, but I'm sure there's examples of both out there.

 

[sr36]

I do agree with the overall point. And the context is needed

The 'thing' being promoted or supported is incredibly important.

What do you think they were they supporting/promoting?

I think they were probably supporting a ceasefire. Would you have the same attitude towards it if it was a symbol of support for Israel or Russia?

 

[CM86]

I think they were probably supporting a ceasefire. Would you have the same attitude towards it if it was a symbol of support for Israel or Russia?

Again, as you said, the context is important.

If someone has had a Russian flag up for years, why should they take it down?
Support for Russia as a nation isn't a bad thing. Support for Russian people etc etc, is not a bad thing. There shouldn't be any issue with it.
Having said that, many people have removed public shows of support for Russia as a nation, due to their invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities, either because they're against Russian actions, or they don't want to be seen as supporting current Russian actions.
A person who only started publicly supporting Russia after their invasion would be viewed as endorsing/supporting the invasion.
Support for Russia, currently, comes across as support for Putin and Russia's actions.


If there was a sudden showing of support for 'Palestine' the day of of for a period of time after the October 7th terrorist attack, that would appear as an obvious sign of support for that attack.
Even suddenly wearing a keffiyeh for that time period could be viewed as supporting terrorism or support for terrorists.
Putting up the Israel flag, or the Star of David etc for that period of time would be showing support for the victims and Israel after the attack.


Now that Israel has committed many atrocities onto innocent Palestinian people, to the point that it is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and there is frequent talk of genocidal intent etc. It's understandable to show support for innocent victims without it being an attack on Jews, Israel, religion etc.
Showing support now, for Palestinian people is not an attack on Jews or even Israel itself necessarily. It's a humanitarian crisis that people can show support for.

 

[evolved2]

Well then someone's support for Palestine shouldn't be viewed as a religious attack or support for religious extremists like HAMAS.
And it shouldn't be influenced by Israel.

It doesn't matter how you view it. The issue is controversial, potentially hurts the business, and the women are free to protest whatever they like on their own time.

I'm just saying that you seem to have pointed out the common view that two young white women probably aren't Muslim.

Probability suggests I'm correct. Are you disagreeing with statistics?

Btw the women didn't claim to be Muslim or Middle Eastern.

Is the clothing they wore Islamic or Middle Eastern?

Which supports what I believe is common knowledge, that anti-Islam sentiment is often a racial thing disguised as anti-religion.

You want to push that angle, but you've failed to support the argument adequately here imo. Feel free to keep going.

Why the left cosies up to Islam and opposes Christianity is racial in nature to me. The left is anti-white and you see Christianity as a white religion. I suppose the left need to find a 'victim' group to help their fight against Christianity, but it's weird to me that you've chosen a religion that's largely misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic.

I oppose all versions of Islamic religion.

But it's not part of this discussion.

It can be. I'm in.

From what I understand they're not religious and it was done purely as a show of support for persecuted Palestinians.
I don't believe they should have lost their source of income because of it.
I think it shows a sign of a more radicalised Western world, with a reduction in secularism.

A fair outcome would have been for them to be asked to remove the clothing, then carry on. I feel the response was unnecessarily harsh.

How is the west more radicalised?

 

[CM86]

The left is anti-white and you see Christianity as a white religion.

Do you really believe this?

 

[evolved2]

Do you really believe this?

Absolutely.

Have a read of Ghost Patrol 's posts on the Islam thread and the bible thread, and tell me you don't see a difference.

I can give you other examples, but that poster is the most obvious in their bias.

 

[evolved2]

In fact CM86 , I think your posts here may reflect your own bias.

I saw the issue as being about clothing supporting Palestine. Who brought Islam into the discussion?!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Absolutely.

Have a read of Ghost Patrol 's posts on the Islam thread and the bible thread, and tell me you don't see a difference.

I can give you other examples, but that poster is the most obvious in their bias.

I don't subscribe to your white supremacy ideology.

I can see how a fragile mindset might view that as anti white. Teaspoon of cement, dude.

 

[Chief]

In some parts of society it would be more controversial to not sell them.

Which parts? And why? Their business is not intrinsically linked to Pride Month. They're not a national brand that I can see. I'd never heard of them before.

 

[CM86]

Absolutely.

Have a read of Ghost Patrol 's posts on the Islam thread and the bible thread, and tell me you don't see a difference.

I can give you other examples, but that poster is the most obvious in their bias.

The left is anti-white and you see Christianity as a white religion.

I wasn't asking as an incredulous question because you're so wrong with thinking it. I just wanted to confirm it's a real belief and position you hold.

Because you're not wrong in how Christianity is viewed and rejected by 'the left' in Western cultures.

I can recognise how Christianity can be viewed as a 'white religion', and how being against Christianity is an aspect of this 'anti-white' thing you're talking about.
The same way I can recognise that Islam is viewed as a 'non-white religion', and how being against Muslims can be an aspect of white supremacy/ehtno nationalism/christofascism.

Why can't you see any connection between 'racism' and Islam, but you can see a connection between 'racism' and Christianity?

 

[ShanDog]

Which parts? And why? Their business is not intrinsically linked to Pride Month. They're not a national brand that I can see. I'd never heard of them before.

Portland. The answer to all these sorts of questions is Portland

 

[CM86]

In fact CM86 , I think your posts here may reflect your own bias.

I saw the issue as being about clothing supporting Palestine. Who brought Islam into the discussion?!

So it's even more about race for you then?
White people wearing non-traditional Western/white clothing.

People wear European clothing everyday, without issue. Even with the current Russia invasion of Ukraine.
Because European/white 'cultures' etc are part of 'Western' society and accepted.
The same way that Christianity, Catholicism etc are.

So there is an inherent racism/rejection by some people of 'different' things. That aren't white/Western. And it's because Western society is what that know and live within.



'The left' in Western society also have their biases against Western cultures, because that's what they know and live within.
So they will have been impacted and educated about things like Christianity etc more than they would Islam. And because of that they are more comfortable calling out problems with it and issues around it.
The same way 'white western left' is more comfortable to call out 'white' people, for racism, prejudice, hate etc. While also having less sympathy for 'white' people even if going through the same hardships individually as other non-white people.


But having said all of that. It's why I can see the link between bigotry and most discussions around Islam and Muslims, but I can't understand why you deny it.

 

[CM86]

It doesn't matter how you view it. The issue is controversial, potentially hurts the business, and the women are free to protest whatever they like on their own time.

I'm not saying my view is what should impact any outcome.

I'm raising the questions as to why this has had the impact it did.
You agreed that they shouldn't have been fired for it, so do you feel what they did was that notable in the first place?

Probability suggests I'm correct. Are you disagreeing with statistics?

Btw the women didn't claim to be Muslim or Middle Eastern.

Is the clothing they wore Islamic or Middle Eastern?

You are correct.
But a big part of it is seeing a white woman and assuming they are not Muslim, or having any reason to wear a certain scarf, because it's not 'white'. It's not 'western'. It's not 'normal' for a white woman to wear that...

This is what I'm trying to put across when I point out the bigotry connected to most discussions around Islam.
That it isn't 'white'.

Why the left cosies up to Islam and opposes Christianity is racial in nature to me. The left is anti-white and you see Christianity as a white religion. I suppose the left need to find a 'victim' group to help their fight against Christianity, but it's weird to me that you've chosen a religion that's largely misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic.

I don't like or support Islam.
I do like and support people of Middle east descent.
I hate radicalised ideologues, and extremists.


There is a distinction between Islam, and followers of Islam.
Discussions around Islam almost always involve discussion around immigration, culture, 'impacts to society' etc. This isn't a critique of religion, it's a fear of 'non-white'/'non-Western' people.


I oppose prejudice and bigotry. Anyone who practices, pushes or attempts to enforce things like misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism etc, I am opposed to and against.
But not all Christians are the same, as not all Muslims are the same.
So I'm not against all Christians, or against all Muslims, just because their religion is bigoted. It depends on their actual views/beliefs etc.



What I have found, is most of the people who will say they oppose Islam due to Islamic bigotry, also tend to oppose the same things.
They will be against Muslims in Australia, but also insist that transgenderism, LGBTQ+ etc is fake, dangerous and or grooming.

So while I will maintain a solid position against bigotry and prejudice. Many people who argue against Islam will pick and choose when and where they want to defend LGBTQ+ etc.

How is the west more radicalised?

 

[CM86]

I think that I may often be more lenient on Muslim/Islamic actions, views and positions.