Burqa
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Did you have to bite the apple the snake gave you then offer it to me? |
At the risk of being labelled uneducated that's the whole Adam and Eve thing yeah? 
You know I completed a unit at Uni on comparative religion ( and passed) but I remember more from mum reading me Puss in Boots than I do anything I learned about religion - it just seems an unbelievable fairy tale to me - unlike Puss in Boots 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Well, yes, it's tricky, and i can see the limits of free speech where it is likely to incite hatred or its physical sibling, violence - but humour and irony is different from hate speech and humans distinguish between them with relative ease. If some people react to satire with violence they're likely to do so on some other pretext ; and if they do, we clobber them with the law. If people want to adopt extreme religous norms in a free secular society, however, they must expect to be subject to secular criticism. |
In most cases you're right because there is an established norm from which to mutually deduce the irony. However, as just explained[!!??], in cases where there is no base norm, people absolutely physically do not distinguish between them "with relative ease". You need a more serious explanation of the cognition of irony than that!
In fact, irony and mockery (a form of isolating vitriol) have an identical anatomy; the difference between them lies in the initial assumption as tacitly agreed upon by the speaker and audience (i.e., "the norm"). This very interplay between humour and vitriol is one of the best-known sources of ambiguity in discourse.
Thus, much to the chagrin of many (and I don't mean you as I know you're not like that!), people cannot incite violence and escape responsibility in this instance on the basis that they "know" the other person is "willfully misunderstanding them".
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What do you look like? What does it look like? |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ the buka/burqa is the only garment that truly frightens me.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | Well, yes, it's tricky, and i can see the limits of free speech where it is likely to incite hatred or its physical sibling, violence - but humour and irony is different from hate speech and humans distinguish between them with relative ease. If some people react to satire with violence they're likely to do so on some other pretext ; and if they do, we clobber them with the law. If people want to adopt extreme religous norms in a free secular society, however, they must expect to be subject to secular criticism. |
In most cases you're right because there is an established norm from which to mutually deduce the irony. However, as just explained[!!??], in cases where there is no base norm, people absolutely physically do not distinguish between them "with relative ease". You need a more serious explanation of the cognition of irony than that!
In fact, irony and mockery (a form of isolating vitriol) have an identical anatomy; the difference between them lies in the initial assumption as tacitly agreed upon by the speaker and audience (i.e., "the norm"). This very interplay between humour and vitriol is one of the best-known sources of ambiguity in discourse.
Thus, much to the chagrin of many (and I don't mean you as I know you're not like that!), people cannot incite violence and escape responsibility in this instance on the basis that they "know" the other person is "willfully misunderstanding them". |
Good post, and I get the framework you're positing. I think the difference is that i think there is enough of a base norm, though it's not really clear how you'd measure it. I think we all encountered the bully at school whose last resort was "can't you take a joke"? ... but then and now, we usually differentiate easily between hatred and scorn.
It may be that certain groups want to argue that there is not a base norm, because it allows them to stand above critique. We're not talking about an oppressed sect here - we're talking about one of the world's most powerful rellgions, with vast wealth and influence, an expansionist agenda, and no history, in practice, of dividing religion and state. Whether it can be reconciled with Australian values, and on what terms, time will tell.
In the context of Australian society, we're also considering a legal system that provides strong protection for minorities under the law - including making hate speech unlawful, and penalising "hate crimes" more severely than the same crime committed under a different motive. I think those are good conditions to protect minorities from those who use free speech to justify simple xenophobic malevolence.
Can satire go too far ? Yes it can, if it becomes relentless and harrassing. It's a complex world. But today it does not go far enough.
So let them wear what they like, and challlenge what it means to do so. In the context of my society, I think it's a regressive patriarchal symbol and we should satirise it as such. I suspect the Islamists fear ridicule far more than they fear bans.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | ^ the buka/burqa is the only garment that truly frightens me. |
Can't say I'm a fan of the Niqab.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Did you have to bite the apple the snake gave you then offer it to me? |
At the risk of being labelled uneducated that's the whole Adam and Eve thing yeah?
You know I completed a unit at Uni on comparative religion ( and passed) but I remember more from mum reading me Puss in Boots than I do anything I learned about religion - it just seems an unbelievable fairy tale to me - unlike Puss in Boots |
Yep, Genesis. (not the band either)
If you've got the time this is quite amusing re Adam & Eve:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFhFO0nGPQ
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | |
Catholic Nun.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The difference being, the husbands of catholic woman won't stone you to death for not wearing a habit.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^Good point. |
Edit: That "good point" was for the picture of a nun!
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You notice also how the Catholic can look the camera straight in the eye? Those other untrustworthy women are all looking to the side, evasively. And their eyes are too close together. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Morrigu wrote: | ^ way over the top!
.....
And whilst I was reading that saw this......
Israels national airline, El Al, has been criticised for allowing ultra-orthodox Jewish men to disrupt flights by refusing to be seated next to women.
......
Why does it seem that male extremists of all religions have such a problem with women -  |
Did you have to bite the apple the snake gave you then offer it to me?
Another example of the historical origins of Misogyny.
Then again your question could be framed as why do men have such a problem with women? Given a woman is killed every week by a man in Australia. |
Presuming that each woman is being killed by a different man (probably not literally the case, but close enough statistically), that means that 0.0004% of Australia's male population kills a woman every year. Not sure what that says about the other 99.9996%. |
Well, if they live long enough, they'll all eventually be in the 0.0004%? |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ yes, this stuff has deep roots in Christianity as well. However, a Catholic nun is a slightly different case, given the voluntary vow of chastity. The covering of the hair and shoulders etc is also a sexual negation, but not as the possession of a man (or at least not an earthly one). The wedding veil is a better example of our history with this.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | Well, yes, it's tricky, and i can see the limits of free speech where it is likely to incite hatred or its physical sibling, violence - but humour and irony is different from hate speech and humans distinguish between them with relative ease. If some people react to satire with violence they're likely to do so on some other pretext ; and if they do, we clobber them with the law. If people want to adopt extreme religous norms in a free secular society, however, they must expect to be subject to secular criticism. |
In most cases you're right because there is an established norm from which to mutually deduce the irony. However, as just explained[!!??], in cases where there is no base norm, people absolutely physically do not distinguish between them "with relative ease". You need a more serious explanation of the cognition of irony than that!
In fact, irony and mockery (a form of isolating vitriol) have an identical anatomy; the difference between them lies in the initial assumption as tacitly agreed upon by the speaker and audience (i.e., "the norm"). This very interplay between humour and vitriol is one of the best-known sources of ambiguity in discourse.
Thus, much to the chagrin of many (and I don't mean you as I know you're not like that!), people cannot incite violence and escape responsibility in this instance on the basis that they "know" the other person is "willfully misunderstanding them". |
Good post, and I get the framework you're positing. I think the difference is that i think there is enough of a base norm, though it's not really clear how you'd measure it.
It may be that certain groups want to argue that there is not a base norm, because it allows them to stand above critique. We're not talking about an oppressed sect here - we're talking about one of the world's most powerful rellgions, with vast wealth and influence, an expansionist agenda, and no history, in practice, of dividing religion and state. Whether it can be reconciled with Australian values, and on what terms, time will tell. |
Just to clarify, the "norm" in this instance is the acceptance/rejection of the person concerned. It's not an attire norm; it's fundamentally an in-group/out-group membership norm.
On that basis, I'd say we all know very well there is no clear consensus between Australians on accepting Muslims as full and equal Australians at all, so the listener cannot be expected to know if Fred is stirring in a jovial accepting manner (an inside joke based on assumed acceptance), or in a mocking, marginalising manner. It is expecting way too much of the listener to know which is which, something I have had years of experience with as a minority in Asia myself.
And it doesn't matter if that is argued mischievously by some nasty cleric that gets up your nose; it's an Australian sociological reality. Of course, as I say, there comes a time when a lot of that passes, just as it did in Italian Australian history, but even then you will find sensitivity in a certain age group (IIRC even FrankyBoy has discussed this at length on Nick's).
This is, of course, cause for great discomfort when you believe you're an insider to a group (such as believe I am with South Koreans, or did as a kid with the various groups I grew up with), yet get summarily dismissed by a reactionary Other in that group as "just another white so-and-so." But there's no point reacting to that; the worst I have had to put up with could never compare to how bad the historical discrimination running the other way has been.
I assume you agree, but we also can't damage the innocent and average just to whack the real arseholes; this is basic conservative thinking, obsessed with punishment and "keeping people in line" as the right is. Indeed, sometimes you wonder if you could reduce conservative thought to the following: Better to destroy a building to catch a rat than to enjoy a building despite a rat! (Especially if you own the redevelopment permit!).
Also, not only are local Muslims greatly marginalised, the same applies to millions upon millions of marginalisedand incredibly decentralisedMuslims overseas, including those who don't wear such confronting attire, and those who have no concept whatsoever of applying irony to authority and the sacred (and that applies to most of the world's cultures, including most of Asia, BTW). So I am greatly cynical of the relevance of that point to the issue. There is no great evil "they" out there which justifies damaging someone's quality of life here.
But agreed, certainly, you'd hope that discomfort and ambiguity would eventually largely pass.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
