Yes, that’s the one I remembered. It had something like 15 students the first year. OK, I stand corrected. Now that I’m older, I often believe that past events are much more recent than they really are.
i stand corrected about the current total number too.
I won’t go that far. It’s scary that a person can be made a social pariah, or his business made to lose a lot of money, because of an organized free speech campaign. I’m not really comfortable with shunnings or boycotts.
But I can’t see any conceivable “remedy” for the bug, even if it is conceded to be a bug at all. How do you shut down a shunning or a boycott? The only way would be by making it illegal for one guy to whisper to another, privately, in conversation, “Psst. Boycott Captain Charles. Pass it on.”
Is this not part of how the marketplace of ideas should work? Just as a business can and should lose in the actual marketplace by producing deficient or harmful products, so people can lose by putting out hateful ideas.
No, it’s not. This guilt by association bullshit is fucking insane, and it’s not just targeted at people who put out hateful ideas. If you want to know just how out of control it is, recall that one of these online lynch mobs got someone fired for saying it is out of control.
It makes me uncomfortable because it is so highly “leveraged.” It goes beyond ordinary market corrections. A shunning or a boycotting is (or can be) disproportionate punishment. It singles one person out as a special case, “makes an example of him,” damages him severely.
“Social pariah.” That’s pretty damn tough. And, yes, it is nothing more than a function of speech. Nobody talks to him. Obviously, no “cure” via legislation is possible. “You, you, and you: you must talk to the person in question for two hours on Tuesday, or face a fine.” Absurd!
I guess I’d be slightly more comfortable if each individual customer of the shop in question made up his or her own mind. The organization of the boycott acts to increase the severity. Lots of people who might not have cared, will fall in with the group and shun the shopkeeper.
(There is also a possibility of corruption. A successful boycott organizer could become an extortionist. “Give me some money, or you’re next.” “But I never said anything bad about anybody!” “No, but they’ll believe me if I say you did.” This risk, of course, pertains to any celebrity.)
Do you have an actual, neutral observer citation for that claim? Or are we just accepting any stereotype that some anti-Islamic blogger claims is true?
Where did anyone assert this?
Your claim is not supported by this Wikipedia article (unless you have access to some meaning of " vast sections" that is not found in normal English.
Wait, I thought it was bigoted for white people with non-Muslim backgrounds to question the assertions of brown people from with Muslim backgrounds. Why do you suddenly exempt yourself from this?
And by this whacked out criteria that you display here, anyone who questions Islamist ideology is anti-Islamic and therefore automatically disqualifies themselves from having their observations considered. Tautology much?
Tom you need to cite my claims directly if you wish me to respond to your supposed refutation of them. You have a *horrible *habit of arguing against some caricature of what people write instead of what they actually write.
If you want to troll, go to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Piffle. You made a n inaccurate claim about what women had to wear in “vast sections” of Pakistan. Your claim and its error are both clear enough.
My opinion on this is that, out of principle, people should not be shunned heavily like this for stating their opinion. To a point. If someone for example, proclaims that they are a White Nationalist they are admitting that they are working towards a future that excludes entire groups based on race, and it this point I think it is fine to shun them from polite society and boycott their businesses, ect.
Bullshit Tom you are delusional. Cite the claim directly or be silent and let the grownups discuss grownup issues.
This is not The BBQ Pit.
Beyond that, my comment stands.
Cite the claim. Then offer your refutation, that’s how it works.
Hank, you do realize we can scroll up, right ?
Right, and what has been offered is proof that some women in some areas are uncovered at some times. Which is in no way a refutation of my claim.
Or you could just abuse your authority over the conversation, as usual.
No, actually **tomndebb **has provided a cite that states :
[QUOTE=Wiki]
In Pakistan, the use of the burqa is primarily predominant in Pashtun territories along the border areas, especially in FATA and to a great extent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. However, in the remaining majority of the country, its use has greatly declined over time.
[/QUOTE]
Pick up a map. Note how vast these sections of the country aren’t.