The hijab (etc) is immodest

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you care to explain how a female not wearing a hijab is harming others, and so..deserves to be ostracized for the greater good?

[WinterHold]

Would you care to explain how a female not wearing a hijab is harming others, and so..deserves to be ostracized for the greater good?

My words would point to "prison for doing crimes", not to "wearing what one wants".

[EgoDeath]

You know who looked really fucking hot in a hijab? Mia Khalifa.... UGH she really got me going when she had that thing on and she was... um... well, those of you that know, know. I don't think we can share certain links here on the normal portion of the board, so I'll just leave this link instead

https://duckduckgo.com/

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you care to explain how a female not wearing a hijab is harming others, and so..deserves to be ostracized for the greater good?

My words would point to "prison for doing crimes", not to "wearing what one wants".

Wonderful, then you understand the objection to the hijab.  You can explain it to that asshole, what's his name......?

Oh, it's Atlas!  Atlas is the asshole you now have the responsibility of explaining the subject of this thread to.  Good luck.

[WinterHold]

My words would point to "prison for doing crimes", not to "wearing what one wants".

Wonderful, then you understand the objection to the hijab.  You can explain it to that asshole, what's his name......?

Oh, it's Atlas!  Atlas is the asshole you now have the responsibility of explaining the subject of this thread to.  Good luck.

All I understand, is that there are some insecure men who want women to be not-free to cover their own bodies.
You seem like you can't handle rejection from women.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that guy, there he is. Explain shit to that guy. He's confused.

[WinterHold]

And curiously they never complain about being oppressed, so I would say you're putting words in their mouths.

It's rather difficult for oppressed women in an insanely patriarchal society to speak out about their oppression.  That's kind of definitional.

Boru

This ^.

One way to justify the forcing of oppressive laws on a group of people, is claiming that "a majority chose the oppressive law", knowing that all other voices are suppressed and muffled.

[Belacqua]

But you have to make somebody "ostracized" if they are causing harm to others.
This is a kind of punishment that is good for the society and even essential: some people are in for the harm, they want to cause harm, they believe in harm culture too. The best solution would be to isolate them from the public, and their psychological harm would stop too when they can't practice it on anybody.

Yes, and I think the people who do the harm usually think they are doing a good thing. In fact they probably feel they are justified in ostracizing someone who doesn't conform to the group norms. 

Every year in Japan several high school kids commit suicide from bullying. When the news media interview the bullies, they always say the same thing: that kid was kind of strange. He needed to be more normal. Anyway, life is tough, if he couldn't take a little bullying it was good for him to just check out. 

We see exactly the same justification in operation in American society, and on this forum. Personal insults are justified; if you can't put up with bullying from the group you are the bad one, and you should just leave. On this forum they mean you should just leave the forum, but of course none of us knows what is going on in anyone else's private mental life. No one here knows who is on the brink. 

So I think that in traditional Muslim societies people who will scold women who don't wear headscarves, and people on this forum who feel justified in typing personal insults at those who express difference, are really operating on the same principles. The scale is different, but that's only due to the numbers involved. 

I do think that discipline is good in some cases, and that harmful people should be stopped from doing harm. The self-righteousness of those who feel the duty to attempt this, unofficially and with often counter-productive methods, is the problem.

[WinterHold]

But you have to make somebody "ostracized" if they are causing harm to others.
This is a kind of punishment that is good for the society and even essential: some people are in for the harm, they want to cause harm, they believe in harm culture too. The best solution would be to isolate them from the public, and their psychological harm would stop too when they can't practice it on anybody.

Yes, and I think the people who do the harm usually think they are doing a good thing. In fact they probably feel they are justified in ostracizing someone who doesn't conform to the group norms. 

Every year in Japan several high school kids commit suicide from bullying. When the news media interview the bullies, they always say the same thing: that kid was kind of strange. He needed to be more normal. Anyway, life is tough, if he couldn't take a little bullying it was good for him to just check out. 

We see exactly the same justification in operation in American society, and on this forum. Personal insults are justified; if you can't put up with bullying from the group you are the bad one, and you should just leave. On this forum they mean you should just leave the forum, but of course none of us knows what is going on in anyone else's private mental life. No one here knows who is on the brink. 

So I think that in traditional Muslim societies people who will scold women who don't wear headscarves, and people on this forum who feel justified in typing personal insults at those who express difference, are really operating on the same principles. The scale is different, but that's only due to the numbers involved. 

I do think that discipline is good in some cases, and that harmful people should be stopped from doing harm. The self-righteousness of those who feel the duty to attempt this, unofficially and with often counter-productive methods, is the problem.

To do the essential and needed ostracizing in a society, you must have the proper justification for doing so. While some justifications are none-sense and a form of bigotry, the others are essential and needed.

For example, I can't blame a "cop" for shooting a serial killer. But I can indeed blame a bully leading a colleague to suicide.

In this forum, I cannot blame a moderator banning a troll. But I can indeed blame a troll for breaking the rules without any respect to the place or to other members.

In other words; what you suggest is simply treating others like innocent infants, while reality is that some people will use your innocence; get atop of you then play soccer with you, while you watch them live and watch yourself perish.

The only way to stop such behavior is to have clear, official laws and rules, to stop that behavior at bay before it hurts and destroys.
Before it causes not just psychological harm; but also physical harm.

[Belacqua]

The only way to stop such behavior is to have clear, official laws and rules, to stop that behavior at bay before it hurts and destroys.
Before it causes not just psychological harm; but also physical harm.

I agree that clear official rules can go some way toward damping down psychological abuse. 

But I think we also said the other day that it is intrinsic to humans to find ways to avoid rules that are handed down from above. Whether that "above" is said to be God or just human authority. 

So there is something more difficult that is necessary, I think. And I think that severe self-criticism is crucial. Because we know from experience that people who do harm generally feel they are justified. Therefore when we feel justified is exactly the time we need the most severe self-examination. 

I learned this most directly from William Blake, but it is intrinsic in Christian thought: obedience to the law can be a method to avoid empathy, and a justification for our own cruelty. This is true whether it's law from "above" or peer pressure.