GarbageShoot [he/him]

Removed by mod

If that was adequate to explain Youtube’s decision-making, the platform would be unrecognizably different for all of the terrible things Youtube didn’t do because it would be – and indeed was – terrible

You don’t seem very interested in the responses that do elaborate. I wonder why that is . . .

and it is typically punished when evidence exists

Imagine thinking this

The Russian Federation was founded about 30 years ago due to NATO and its work with the USSR’s internal compradores. It’s difficult to discuss modern Russia without involving the West.

It seems like this would hurt their brand to pick this fight, since moronic “conscientious” labor aristocrats are their target demo.

they are not transparent at all on their investigations and sources.

God, I just hate when they are completely opaque in their accusations. Good thing they fired Ned Price.

How can you be so far gone that you don’t see the Islamophobia all over France as being connected to Christianity?

Typical reply from an islamist that never left the muslim country where he lives.

I’m an American atheist and you’re a chauvinist troglodyte

Even if 1 person benefits with the law then the law is worth it. Or do you think that the law needs to benefit everybody? The law needs to protect the most vunerable. In this case the muslim women.

If all it did was marginally help people, that would be good. But it doesn’t just do that, it also hurts people, and that’s the only reason people here are arguing against it (we don’t have “Haram Police” here decrying infidels). It is punishing children for adhering to a clearly mostly benign cultural practice. Yeah, we can criticize it, but that’s different from indiscriminately outlawing it or framing every single girl wearing a baggy dress as a victim of child abuse, and this all fits within a larger framework of plainly anti-Muslim policy forcing people to either assimilate or have no place in public life.

Typical NuAtheist reactionary bullshit. Yes, mistreating someone and pressuring them to wear this or that is bad, but that includes using the law to force people who do themselves prefer to wear an abaya or whatever else to not do so. Insofar as we can even call this a legitimate issue, it is one with far greater complexity than can be solved with sledgehammer legislation, even if some people do benefit, because many do not.

The sermon bit reminded me of Deen Squad.

“Those Jews whose families have lived here for centuries and whose first language is French should really assimilate to the local culture”

If you’re a real atheist, and I suspect none of you really are

lol

then follow your principles,

Yes, let me just consult the Atheist bible for the definite set of principles all atheists have.

Organized religion like Catholicism is an undebatably malignant social entity, but religion in general? I think Marx has it completely right:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

When he calls it “the opium of the people” he doesn’t mean “they do it recreationally and it kills them,” he means “though it hampers them, it anesthetizes pain inflicted on them from without”. If you want humanity to be free of religion rather than merely having an atheistic upper class be free of needing to see the rabble practice religion (by persecuting the latter), then the primary answer is not to legislate against religion but to legislate against the problems that, in turn, drive people to religion. It can be difficult to accept, but whether it matches your personal experience or not, religion serves useful social functions, just as opium serves useful medical functions (whatever else we may rightly say about both). If you want to get rid of religion, you need to do the good that it does better than it. If you want the oppressed creature not to sigh, end its oppression. To simply stifle its sigh is to strangle it.

I would support removal of religion from schools simply on the basis that it’s the source of most of the world’s wars.

This is false. It was used as the pretext for most of the world’s wars, just as secular equality is used as the pretext for this law, but the actual cause of those and virtually all wars lies in material motivations (land, resources, etc), just as the true objective of the law is to forcibly assimilate minorities.

Dawkins and Harris yet live, unfortunately

This is like the democrats who applaud gun control even when it is used with surgical precision to prevent black communities from defending themselves from police violence. “I don’t support police violence, I simply approve of gun control”.

Some very fundamentalist churches ban wearing mixed fabrics.

It’d be funny if some school uniform used mixed fabrics and there was a fundie Christian outcry over it.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

One of their old messages implied that (asking how much rent they should charge). I have no idea if they generally claim it, let alone if it’s actually true.

Don’t you steal enough from your tenants to be able to afford a reading tutor if you need one that badly?