Caping number of foreign students to 1/3 does seem to be a effective way of integrating them. But banning clothing is like curing the symptom instead of cause, and is rather racist.
Am I understanding correctly that this is about full face veils? Did anyone even wear these?
This looks like the obvious distraction tactic to placate to racists by bullying Muslims while not solving any actual economic issues.
Point of laws like these is to extend on them later.
They could raise age from school kids to work-place now. Or simply expand it to hijabs, hats, and wigs. To protect the children, of course.
People start wearing covid masks again to avoid camera face detection? Perfect foundation to ban masks now!
Am I understanding correctly that this is about full face veils? Did anyone even wear these?
Nope
Caps number of foreign students per class.
The fuck?
This is actually proven way of integrating foreigners. Except it comes at the cost of education accessability sometimes.
One step closer to Mussolini coming back.
his grandaughter is in a far right political party, so its pretty close.
It introduces "A 30 per cent cap on the number of students in a class who do not have an adequate command of Italian, more tools for learning our language
Let’s have a little bit of fascism, as a treat. I’ll bet those “tools for learning [the Italian] language” are shit. As if conservatives would spend money to help foreigners.
I’d also say Giorgia Miloni is more than just a “little bit” of fascism. Her party knows what torch they carry.
She is a fascist, and if that infamous news clip is what it seemed, she’s a drug user too.
Not sure what to make of the limit to be honest. Where I live we’ve never had people in school who don’t speak the language.
Lol this is done in United States already. Since the 90s really 😂😂
Good, burqas and niqabs are never a choice. They’re always imposed upon women and girls via violence, coercion, and intimidation. They’re tools of oppression and should be banned everywhere.
Burqas and Niqabs aren’t even required, unlike hijabs, and are instead part of a conservative movement.
That being said, this still reads a bit off. You can apply that logic to all “feminine” acts.
“Makeup is never a choice. They are always forced upon women by tradition, patriarchy, and beauty standards. They’re tools of oppression and should be banned everywhere.”
At the end of the day, I think governments should simply not have police dictating gender-specific clothing.
White people loooove to “liberate” muslim women’s oppression.
If you actually talk to hijabi women, there biggest worry is how the society view them as “backward” and “uncivilized”, not being forced to wear it. Its like how you guys haven’t even read about your own colonial past
Maybe you should try to talk to the non “hijabi” women instead, see what they think of the crap you say. Almost like it’s a complex topic, and shouting “colonialism” doesn’t help anyone
“Choices are what I say they are.”
People can wear clothing for any reason they want, not just the reasons you think they should be able to.
All theistic religions are harmful (not just Islam), but there are at least two major issues with oppressive laws like this:
- It’s just Islamaphobia (racism). Singling out clothing that Muslims would wear and ignoring crosses or other religious clothing kind of gives away the underlying motivation for these bans.
- Policing this shit will always cause more harm than good. It would be authoritarian as fuck.
This law isn’t oppressive for kids forced to wear a fucking bag and indoctrinated into a cult. Religion is a monstrous evil.
There is no judgement mechanism that the state can employ that can accurately determine when a person is forced to wear something that they may choose to. Attempting to enforce such judgement will always cause more harm than any perceived good.
What about child marriage? Since “there is no judgement mechanism to determine if it was forced.” And should we let people sell their organs, too, since we can’t prove coercion?
Ultimately, you’re right, we can’t make these cults illegal, but we can make the cultist’s lives as difficult as possible. And we should.
Let me put it another way. Anyone who thinks women must wear black bags on their heads is a piece of shit. Since many people will be helped by this law, and only pieces of shit will be inconvenienced, it is a good law.
The complete inability to acknowledge this kind of obvious facts about the world is why the left doesn’t win elections. It’s literally written in law in places like Iran and Afghanistan and is often the first thing muslim women stop doing the moment the authoritarian grip starts slipping.
Ah yes, the nebulous left who refuse to acknowledge that… Italy is the same country as Iran or Afghanistan???
Iran and Afghanistan are irrelevant in a conversation discussing the harms or perceived benefits of the authoritarian and Islamaphobic ban that Italy is enacting. Italy is the country implementing the ban, and Italy does doesn’t mandate the wearing of clothing associated with Islam.
If you actually cared to prevent forced religious dress code, the thing you would push for is that countries with such laws repeal the laws, rather than cheering when countries with no such laws implement authoritarian bans to prevent people from wearing what they want.
All theistic religions are harmful
I think most people who say this only have experience with Abrahamism and make sweeping generalisations about it. At best, people have read some European history, but that’s still a very biased sample.
Nope. I mean all theistic beliefs. I became an anti-theist after many years of being a deist. I am familiar with at least one non-Abrahamic theistic belief (deism). And I know a little about others.
But there is no exceptional theism that will ever justify the belief in god(s). We can’t know if god(s) exist. They likely don’t, but that cannot be proven right or wrong, so we should adopt the default position: “we don’t know”. Believing in a consequential claim with no evidence is a great way to believe in harmful lies.
Shaping your identity, ethics, or other major facets about who you are around the (very likely untrue) unfalsifiable belief in god(s) is a dangerous thing to do. If you’re willing to believe such a consequential and unfalsifiable claim, your theism can be used to justify any harmful beliefs.
Beliefs influence actions, and actions have consequences. That doesn’t change just because your preferred god(s) are different than the Abrahamic one.
Believing in a consequential claim with no evidence is a great way to believe in harmful lies.
It’s an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies. Whether the lies are helpful or not depends on the intention and competence of those who made them up. I fully support believing in lies that help society and make our lives happier.
I view religions as ways to make ideas easier to understand. They’re a form of data compression for human thoughts, that makes them easier to remember and to transmit. A JPEG is a “lie” because it’s lossy compression. It creates visual artefacts that aren’t in the original. But those artefacts are byproducts of a process that makes images smaller and easier to store on old hardware.
So if you want a culture that practices complex systems of politics and ethics and science for many many generations, you better have a great compression algorithm. Like a religion. With intelligent design of faith, religion can be a “lie” that makes a society healthy, strong, and nice to live in.
So that’s My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good. I don’t believe in objective truth, I think everything humans have yet gained the ability to know is some flavour of inaccurate. Best to choose helpful inaccuracies instead of harmful ones.
It’s an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies
That was addressed in my other comment. And if you believe that the reasons for doing good things in the world are “beneficial lies”, I’d say that’s another issue with theism warping your view of reality. You don’t need “beneficial lies” to do good in the world. You merely need the desire and ability to do good – neither of which require theism. But the lies that people are influenced by will contribute to harmful beliefs and actions, which is the main problem with theism.
So that’s My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good.
I am not appealing to an “objective truth”. I’m appealing against the solopsism and nihilism required to believe something you know is unfalsifiable. If you can’t know something is true, be honest with yourself and others. Your position on the matter should be “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”. Not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”.
You don’t need “beneficial lies” to do good in the world.
I think I do. I don’t believe in absolute truth. I think we can only ever choose which lies to believe in.
Good lies, designed competently by well-meaning leaders, will make the world better.
You don’t need to believe in an “absolute truth”. But you shouldn’t adopt an affirmative belief in things that you know cannot be proven or disproven. The only honest answer to such a matter – a belief in god(s) – is: “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”; not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”. The latter is harmful.
Religion is a manmade technology that is useful as hell when it comes to keeping existential dread at bay long enough to procreate
It does a lot more than that. In Australia, it’s been used to prevent violence, maintain the environment, and aid in resource use for thousands of years.
I didn’t know that about Aboriginal religion, but I have heard of some heady, trance monk type practices (like near interdimensional transcendence stuff) which I appreciate. Can’t remember if it involved straight up psychedelics or just meditation, which is always mindblowing to me.
Something about all these first peoples, man, they really knew how to weave a mythos between the world and ourselves on every level.
It’s because of thousands of years of practice!
The geopolitical west is so politically unstable, they can’t develop their myths properly. Every few hundred years, it’s another cultural revolution with them! With all that turmoil, it’s no wonder their cultural development is so stunted.
I think with the help of science, we can develop cultures fast enough to keep up with modern life. But not the west’s modern science. We need some more advanced psychology, like what the First Australians have.
Theistic beliefs are a terrible way to determine what is true, especially when theism is not only simultaneously used to justify harm (bigotry, supremacy, exploitation), but also unnecessary for achieving caring about justice (rights, environmental conservation, veganism, anti-capitalism, etc.).
Do some theists end up doing and believing progressive and beneficial things? Yes, but a house built on a weak foundation can fall apart much more easily than one built on a solid one. You should do good in the world because that is the kind of person you want to be, not because of a (very likely untrue) belief you adopted that cannot be falsified.
I just feel like taking this stance a little too hard makes philosophy = bad. There is a difference when beliefs conflict with being just, I agree. But good religion is built on deep conviction, in my mind, and approaches a sort of chicken-or-the-egg relationship with truly righteous acts.
but a house built on a weak foundation can fall apart much more easily than one built on a solid one
I’d say it’s pretty bleedin’ obvious that the house with the strongest foundation is the world’s oldest living cultural group: Aboriginal Australians. Obviously, belief in the Rainbow Serpent has greatly benefitted their ancient nations. They preserved knowledge of the sea level rise at the end of the ice age through 10,000 years, that’s the best history-keeping in the world. I’d say Aboriginal religions are carefully calibrated machines of political technology, creating good societies through social engineering.
The results speak for themselves: Believing in the Rainbow Serpent is the right thing to do, because it makes the world a better place. So I believe.
It’s just Islamaphobia (racism). Singling out clothing that Muslims would wear and ignoring crosses or other religious clothing kind of gives away the underlying motivation for these bans.
The law almost certainly talks about face covering broadly and equally prohibits you to wear a ski-mask to school whether you’re a muslmim or not.
So no more masks during covid, right?
burqas and niqabs are never a choice
Not after you’ve banned them, certainly
That is not even mentioning the most important reasons I see for the ban.
Security/safety and inclusivity.
Security/safety, this law is about schools, a major safety concern is keeping track of who is authorized to be in the school. Garmets that cover the face makes this way more difficult.
How do you prevent unauthorized personal from accessing the school if you can’t even identify who is authorized?
Inclusivity, it is far easier to make friends and integrate into society if other’s can see you face, it make it far easier to communicate (most of our communications are non-verbal after all) and play with friends.
it is far easier to make friends and integrate into society if other’s can see you face
For neurotypicals. As an autistic person, I don’t really see the big deal about looking at faces. They might as well be ankles for all I care about them.
How dare you bring up women and girls when we are defending the right of their fascistic cults to dehumanize them!
