I mean, if there’s bribing going on there’s no guarantee it’s Messi doing it. Given his long career and the fact he’s (as far as I hear; I don’t watch football) the only one not playing like a thug, I’d say it’s much more likely someone is bribing them for him.

Come back when you have something more convincing than “no… just no,” because I’m not writing another wall of text just for you to ignore. Freedom of expression doesn’t become invalid when you don’t like the results. Like I said to the other person, if the majority thinking something is abnormal (or any other buzzword, “oppressive” included) is enough to ban it, then liberal democracy is meaningless.

That’s old news; Chinese workers now are actually decently well-paid AFAIK, while the low-paid export labor is mostly in Southeast Asia.

It’s a natural application of the law of universal gravitation; China is probably the country in the world with the most human mass.

Okay so even if that is how the idea was originally formulated, it’s obvious that !SupraMario@lemmy.world is correct in his re-application of it.

Proceeds to make an argument that has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance.

(if you need an actual example of how this would happen, please consult Rotherham, in England, where racist Pakistanis formed human trafficking groups and infiltrated social services as well as having the local police force completely subservient to them by using Epstein-style blackmail and inviting the police officers to rape kidnapped children, then utilised their positions in social care to acquire more victims to rape and pimp out)

That’s… not “how this would happen” and has no relation at all to the point you seem to be trying to make? Everything these people did they did under the noses of (and/or with the cooperation of) local police; they didn’t do anything close to “take power” in Rotherham, and the police had no issue cracking down on the perpetrators once they actually got to it. If this is what super regressive Muslim groups taking power in sections of European society looks like, then it’s clearly a non-issue as far as the paradox is concerned. There’s a reason the paradox limits itself to threats to tolerant society, not just anything vaguely intolerant.

I believe that if there is visible presence of highly regressive islamic practices, you might see a rise in reactionary behaviour among christian, jewish or even atheist groups - these groups might organise to oppress women in the same way having seen that Muslims can “get away with it,” they might make moves to increase the visibility of their own faith, seeing that Muslims go the extra mile to make their practices highly visible and infiltrating into daily public life.

And I believe unicorns will fall from the sky tomorrow; we can talk about this when you have evidence.

Literally just asking Muslims to integrate better in your secular society does wonders to prevent other groups from spinning out of control in reaction.

I don’t deal in hypotheticals; the only form of “spinning out of control” that has actually happened is hate crimes against European Muslims, and making society less tolerant to Muslims does nothing to stop those. Also, I think you should integrate in secular society first, because secularism as implemented in most of Europe guarantees the non-interference of religion in the state and the non-interference of the state in religion. If you reject freedom of religion, which you are, you have no business talking about secular society (unless you live in France, but Denmark doesn’t follow the French model). Maybe you have something to learn from burka-wearing Muslims in that regard.

But none of you ever think to do that - your first instinct is to nanny-state them, as if Islam were some condition to be politely danced around, no other ways about it.

Uh… not banning articles of clothing or the like is the default; it’s banning them that needs a solid case, since it’s an egregious violation of freedom of expression. This isn’t nanny-stating; it’s how democracy is supposed to work. It seems to me you have quite a lot of integrating into democratic society to do before you can point fingers at people.

If they’re normal people, treat them like normal people

You mean treat them like your idea of normal people. Again, a core part of liberal democracy is protecting people from what you or anyone else considers “normal;” otherwise you’ll find quite a few people in your corner of the world who think same sex or interracial relationships are very abnormal.

Don’t get me started on “women might choose it for themselves,” because there’s obviously a lot of religious corrosion in their childhood to unpack before we deal with that.

So women don’t get to have autonomy unless you approve of the results. So enlightened, so secular.

Wow, some of y’all really deserve your local fascists.

Wow, didn’t expect to see Clevatess here.

The original idea of having Senators represent their states is a good one but it relies on the states to figure it out.

That’s only part of the original idea. The rest of it was to create a legislative chamber for rich people to hold back the rabble from doing whatever they wanted.

IMO, more legislation would need a higher threshold to pass.

As seen from, well, everything about the filibuster, requiring more than a majority for some or all of a legislative chamber’s normal functions (as opposed to abnormal functions, like constitutional amendments) just makes it more dysfunctional and precipitates democratic backsliding as the math of the thing* stops legislative branch from fulfilling its duties, causing those duties to fall to the decidedly less democratic executive (or, more rarely, judicial) branch. This sort of thing sounds like a good idea at first glance, but it misses the fact that the highest authority of a society needs to be able to do things effectively and in a timely manner if it wants to continue to be the highest authority of that society.

*If you have two sides of an issue, then requiring a simple majority means that at least one side will get its way. Requiring more than that means that you can (and, given a sufficiently polarized political situation, will) get a situation where nobody wins and therefore nothing happens even though everyone involved wants something to happen.

As someone from a country where bidets are normalized, I was horrified when I learned what the toilet paper in Western cartoons was actually used for.

You could get a hand bidet or something that’s less conspicuously bidet-y.

I mean I doubt OOP intended it to be a meme, but it still counts since they think sunlight making visuals on a screen harder to make out is a bug rather than, you know, how the world works. It’s got a mother’s basement-y element that fits a humor comm.

Yep, you don’t know what the paradox of intolerance is. For anyone curious, the paradox of intolerance posits that if a tolerant society extends that tolerance to people who are intolerant, those people might be able to gain power and do away with that tolerance entirely. Setting aside the truth or falsity of that idea (it’s definitely pushed on the internet beyond its actual merit; to my knowledge defensive democracy and similar ideas have generally been an abject failure), applying it to Muslim dress in Western countries relies on two assumptions:

1-Muslims in insert Western country (or a significant subgroup thereof) want to force others to wear Muslim religious dress (the intolerance).

2-If tolerated, Muslims in insert Western country (or a significant subgroup thereof) will be able to gain enough power to force that intolerance on others (the results of tolerating the intolerance).

These two components are both necessary for the paradox of tolerance to make sense. There’s no shortage of bigots who will believe number 1, so let’s go to number 2: Unless you believe that there’s a real danger of a surprise Caliphate popping up in Denmark and the only way to prevent that is to prevent girls from wearing niqab or the like to school, the paradox of tolerance is completely irrelevant here (and, I daresay, essentially a racist dogwhistle). In the first place, the intended resolution of the paradox of tolerance is to forcefully prevent intolerant ideologies from spreading; it has absolutely nothing to do with something as personal as religious observance.

Also let’s not forget: The actual people who passed this law didn’t make this point. If this was part of the thought process, the people who implemented it would’ve said so. Instead their justification was preventing the emergence of “parallel societies” (another racist dogwhisle so blatant I have to wonder if it even counts as a dogwhistle at all). Given the lack of any statement implying otherwise, we can safely conclude this new ban has nothing to do with protecting liberal democracy—and therefore the paradox of tolerance—and everything to do with the Danish government being run by racist pigs—you know, the people the paradox of tolerance was actually referring to.

TL;DR: The word “intolerant” isn’t a buzzword you get to spam to override civil liberties fundamental to democracy.

Can you briefly explain what the paradox of tolerance is first? I know what it is, but I’m not sure you do.

I’m sure this will have vast positive impacts on the lives of Danish people. Also this guy sounds about as left-leaning as Lemmy is religious.

About the fascism thing: That’s how this place always was. It’s particularly obvious on European instances (at least from the perspective of this 2023 Reddit refugee).

Noted.

Yes that’s the whole point I’m making here. Why would it be sexist?

Every now and then I wonder if Iran and crew made a mistake by having their trolls back Trump’s campaign, but then he and his stooges do shit like this.

People actively physically harming others aren’t “assholes”, they are criminals.

Okay? That has nothing to do with anything I said.

The combination with his obvious believe in the inferiority of women makes it a fucking hate crime.

Well that’s certainly your assumption, but you haven’t actually backed it up with anything.

You’re arguing past my point and not really addressing anything I actually said?

Are you really comparing sitting next to a woman would be akin to sexual assault, in a society where men and women are treated as equals?

No? I’m comparing it to something like hugs, which are acceptable cross-gender greetings in some places but limited to the same gender in others. That doesn’t make places where the latter holds anti-democratic. I thought I was clear enough on that, but I’m not justifying what the man in the OP did; I’m just saying jumping from that to “disrespect for democratic values” is reading more into the story than there is to it. Plain entitlement is sufficient to explain everything we see here, and there’d have been no problem had the man been more respectful about what he was trying to do (for example by looking for someone to switch seats with). This is ultimately a problem of how he went about it, not of what he was trying to do.