Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
This is stupid but also dumb. The article said that it would make it illegal to wear face coverings. So does that include, like, medical masks?
This law is just straight up Anti-Islam.
Can you imagine the outcry if a similar law was passed to prevent people from wearing yamakas on the idea of "freedom"?
Everyone should be free to wear whatever they want - but that’s not what this is about. Nobody wears a burka or niqab because they genuinely want to.
Maybe this European country could also make a law that prevents children from face masks prevent them from getting diseases or prevent immunocompromised patients from wearing face masks since they're both forced to?
Nobody wants to wear a face mask because they genuinely want to. 🤦
I really can not believe you just used the line that nobody wants to wear this religious garb of their chosen religion and culture. Let's just ignore the major amount of assumptions and xenophobia present in this line of thought.
The factor of the matter is, you have no idea why people choose to wear that, and while I'm sure some people may be coerced into it, but for the most part, I'm positive that the majority of people are choosing to wear these garbs willingly.
Are you really about to sit here and tell me that there's a difference between a yamaka and a burka? Do people willingly choose to wear yamakas, or do they have to wear them? Do people choose to wear dastars or do they have to be worn? Given this is a European country, I'm going to assume that there isn't any sort of religious law here, meaning that people can dress how they want.
I can very easily make this argument that you made about yamakas and why those should not be allowed in public, and then I can use the fact that the country that claims to be the sole representive of Jewish people, is using their religion to commit a genocide, so I can even make an argument that wearing a yamaka causes people to feel unsafe in public areas.
It is my belief that these laws are anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, xenophobic laws put on the books to prevent refugees from the European-caused disasters in the Middle East from coming to their states and to make them as hostile as possible to cultures that these countries are not willing to understand.
If you’re not willing to grant me that virtually every woman wearing a burka or niqab does so because she has to, not because she wants to, then we’re so far apart on this that there’s nothing to discuss.
"grant me my racist stereotype, or I'm not talking to you"
Interesting strategy, cotton, let's see how that plays out.
In Iran, women are required by law to wear the hijab. In Afghanistan, they’re required by the Taliban to wear a burka or at least a niqab. In Sudan, hijab was mandatory for women until 2019, and the same applies in Saudi Arabia and the Aceh province of Indonesia. But sure - go ahead and call me racist for even daring to suggest they’re doing it for any reason other than their own free choice.
Ah I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I thought we were talking about a proposed law that directly discriminates against Islam in Finland.
Not theocratic countries that had there politics "reset" by the west multiple times.
It is interesting that I was talking about how Muslims should have the freedom of religion in places like Finland and then you immediately pivot to how there are Islamic oppressive countries, which you also note have loosened the restrictions for the last 7 years, have laws about religious garb. In a theocracy. That isn't democratic.
Good simile. Definitely pokes a ton of holes in the "this minister is xenophobic and Islamophobic for trying to introduce this law" and isn't a red herring fallacy.
Strawmanning, motte-and-bailey, whataboutism, moving the goalposts, ad hominem, false equivalence and dismissive sarcasm.
Was there a sale at the bad-faith argument tactics store?
He, and the original post are talking about banning it in Finland. You're moving the goalpost by quoting it's law in a single country.
You're the one arguing in bad faith.
At this point I've mostly been debating the degree to which women wear these willingly - not whether they should be banned in Finland.
News to me and everyone else in this thread that's been discussing an article which talks about Finland specifically proposing a law to ban the burka.
Point out where I straw-manned you, I'd love to see.
Point out the motte, and point out the bailey. I do not change my position from one extreme to another more acceptable one.
Moving the goalpost? Somebody doesn't remember what I said earlier, which is that if Muslims wish to wear religious garb, they should be allowed to, in countries like Finland, which is where this law is being proposed. If I recall correctly, you were the one that brought up Iran and Iraq in Afghanistan. Which one of us is moving the goal post? Definitely not the person bringing up random theocratic countries to try and prove their point that Muslim women in Finland are forced to wear burkas.
I'd love to see where I use an ad hominem attack. It's not an ad hominem attack if it directly relates to the points of your argument.
What false equivalency did I use? Comparing Judaism to Islam? These are both highly Orthodox religions where women are restricted in various garbs and forms, but the difference between Judaism and Muslim is that Jewish women generally wear wigs, not burkas. Let's just forget the fact they're both Abrahamic religions. 🙄 this is also not whataboutism, it's making like comparisons to the types of restrictions that can be put on religion using your logic that you've introduced in your comment when you responded to me about people being forced to wear religious garb.
I hate to burst your bubble, but dismissive sarcasm is not a fallacy.
Apparently there was a sale at the bad faith argument store because you're full of nothing but bad faith arguments. You can't engage with any point I bring up and run to the fallacy market.
Lets play a game, how many fallacies can I count in your argument?
Everything listed below comes directly from your comments which can be verified by the modlog.
This is the implied fallacy. The logical inconsistency here is it makes a major assumption about the wants and desires of people discount any form of autonomy. In this one statement, there's a number of formal fallacies that can also be pointed out, but we're just gonna stick to informal fallacies for the sake of tearing your argument apart and brevity
This is a good example of something called the Divine Fallacy. This is a fallacy where your inability to imagine women who would be willing to wear these religious garbs causes you to insist that practically no woman would wear these garbs if given the choice. Completely ignoring the reality all of the women who live in countries where it's free to practice religion, that wear those garbs, and all of the women who convert to that religion, who wear those garbs.
This is a classic example of a "moving the goalpost" fallacy. In the context of this thread, we were discussing a Finland minister who has proposed a law to ban women from wearing Islamic religious garb in school. Hopefully you read the article so that you would know that's what the article is about. Bringing up Islamic countries that are governed by a theocratic government does not invalidate the claim that women can and do choose to wear Islamic religious garb in countries they are not required to do so and do so of their own free choosing.
This is not an adhominem if the statement you made is also racist. Also, I didnt call you racist, I called that statement and your opinion racist.
This form of argumentation is actually known as the invalidation fallacy. It is an attempt through argumentation to invalidate an argument without having to engage with the argument by pointing out fallacies made in the argument. Generally used by debaters who are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
This is actually a good example of an ad hominem because you have yet to engage with a literal single point that I made and instead revert to attacking my character.
Just to make sure things are incredibly clear and so that we understand each other here are the facts:
In conclusion, this finland minister is trash, and anyone who supports such regulatory policy is also trash.
edit: added a line for formatting
You're wrong and you're projecting, You can't imagine wanting to do it, so you're sure it can't be that way.
"While the niqab is a commendable act in Islam, it is not obligatory for Muslim women. The majority of scholars agree that covering the face and hands is not required, as supported by Quranic verses and Hadiths. A Muslim woman fulfills her religious obligations by adhering to the conditions of the hijab, making the niqab a matter of personal choice rather than a strict religious duty."
Sure, many are in families that push them to do it, but in the end it's not like they're not allowed not to by the religion.
I never claimed otherwise. It’s the lived experience that matters, not the literal interpretation of the original text.
As I said elsewhere in the thread: The Quran and hadiths, while not always explicit, make multiple references to how women should dress. Different countries and religious sects interpret these rules differently, but it all boils down to the same thing: in these cultures, there are consequences for women who don’t follow the tradition.
My issue isn’t with covering your face or hair - it’s when the person isn’t truly free to choose. And I’d argue that, especially when it comes to the burka or niqab, that’s the case for a genuinely high percentage.
...Unless they want to