7 ms·

It's real simple: "Don't take away my choice to wear what I want." For whatever reason, fragile people get real offended by what other people wear.

bartkappenburg 4y ago
Or don't wear
ybinator604g3 4y ago
Is it really a choice when you are talking about religion? I am from Iran. In the school they teach (scare) children that if you don’t wear hijab, you will be hanged from your hair and burned on a stick till eternity in hell after you die. By the way that subject is not elective. You have to pass it. What kind of choice is this? Update (context): I am not talking about the people in west who want to (not)wear hijab. I understand the premise of that choice. But this word (choice) is used daily in government propaganda. Maybe its analogous to talking about the choice of working in a cotton field to a slave. It’s a whole different environment/context. Hence my negative reaction to this word. It’s a matter of feeling which I just expressed. Nothing against someone who has a real choice, without religious stigma.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  You're right - that's not a choice. No one (progressive) is arguing for that.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Obviously that's the reason why people in (say) France are arguing to be allowed to wear it and people in Iran are arguing to be allowed to not wear it. It's the same argument: don't make me do something I don't want to do.
- Macha 4y ago
  Yes. Compare the commercial secular Christmas to the mainstream Christian versions to the biblical literalists version. People in different parts of the world treat their religion and culture with different levels of severity and it's possible for an item associated with an oppressive interpretation in one part of the world to be a cultural pride item in another.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  Many years ago I had a colleague who was a pretty good engineer from Morocco, also a very nice guy. He left his country and was almost disowned by his own family for being an atheist, a condition which over there I imagine is quite rare and dangerous even nowadays, although we have a good set of examples of discrimination in the west too.
  - simfree 4y ago
    He probably had to leave his country to live a reasonable lifestyle. Some countries like Malaysia will not let you leave Islam if your ethnic Malay, and due to your race you are presumed to be Islamic by law. It can be very isolating and sometimes dangerous to be the outsider in an area with uniform religious and cultural beliefs.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > I am not talking about the people in west who want to (not)wear hijab. What are your thoughts on western governments that attempt to ban the hijab? I can't remember if France succeeded.
  - ybinator604g3 4y ago
    I think it’s a complex topic that involves religion, society and culture. In this case it’s important to know if they are singling out hijab or also other religious symbols? For instance France banned full face covers and burkas which are not even mandated by the religion if I am not mistaken. I believe banning a piece of clothing is not reasonable, like banning jeans or headscarves. On the other hand there is a lot of stigma around hijab if you choose not to wear it among some muslim families so much so that it’s not a real choice anymore and it’s not a simple piece of cloth. So I think it’s not bad to have some legal ways to protect you against your over zealous family/community but this kind of lawmaking is very prone to other issues too. Furthermore, banning and enforcing are two sides of the same authoritarian coin which is ultimately the root of the problem. It’s very complicated. I wish I had a straightforward answer.
amelius 4y ago
I don't get offended but I've noticed that when people wear the hood of their hoodies in public transit, I sometimes feel a bit uneasy about not being able to see their faces. So I'm thinking there is a non-religious aspect to the discussion.
- sosborn 4y ago
  I can understand that, but that's not the hoodie wearer's issue to solve.
  - amelius 4y ago
    I'm not so sure about that (in the long run). If a naked person entered the bus, wouldn't it be their issue to get dressed? In the end it is about a social contract, the details of which may change with the course of time.
    - simfree 4y ago
      Nudity in public is legal in Seattle so long as your intent is not to offend.
      - amelius 4y ago
        I didn't check but I think there are lots of places where it is not legal.
        simfree 4y ago
        I see you edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35495960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35495960 to mention social norms after I commented. Locality and social norms definitely play into this conversation, here in Seattle at least there is a culture that supports nudism, whether it's the summer solstice bike ride, certain beaches that are popular for swimming in your birthday suit, etc.
      - flangola7 4y ago
tomohelix 4y ago
The problem is these has been equated to symbols of oppression. Tbf, they serve no practical purpose and are deeply tied to religious practices that have caused lots of problems where they are from. A similar thing would be the ban of wearing nazi symbols.
- toast0 4y ago
  > Tbf, they serve no practical purpose It's a head covering; it covers your head, which can provide comfort depending on the environmental conditions. Depending on the specific garment and context, it may provide some privacy/anonyminity. Comparing it to nazi symbols doesn't seem right; in part because it's not purely symbolic, but also because it's only oppression when you're forced to wear it, not when you choose to. No one is calling for the star of david to be banned because Jews were forced to wear them; if someone wants to wear it, they can.
mc32 4y ago
It’s more complicated because the reason someone may want to wear it is based on indoctrination. If you have a modern sect that indoctrinated its members to serve (labor, etc) the leadership and they do it voluntarily and in addition may balk at not doing it, posing their position as “a choice” is missing the context.
- spideymans 4y ago
  Breaking news: we’re all indoctrinated. That’s why men typically don’t run around wearing dresses, for example. Perhaps we should examine your beliefs for indoctrination? To use your indoctrination as an excuse to remove your bodily autonomy.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Agreed, but I also think there is a difference between forced indoctrination at school (or other institution) versus culture at large.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    Targeted propaganda from the government is not the same as cultural norms
- ramblenode 4y ago
  How is this any different from belief in general? Most people's beliefs are a product of their culture. We are all indoctrinated, whether it's religion, nationalism, or tuna casserole.
  - mc32 4y ago
    The ones handed down by institutions designed to indoctrinate you is different from culture in general which goes through natural filtering and change. Indoctrination usually follows some dogma with "interpreters" who tell you what it means.
4gotunameagain 4y ago
Do the people which get offended by nazi uniforms are fragile as well ? The topic is much more complicated than "fragility" as you are dismissively trying to portray it. We wear clothes in civilised societies for a reason, and different types of clothes have different types of societal effects. Your freedom ends where the the freedom of the next person's begins.
- sosborn 4y ago
  If I see a person nazi regalia I might feel uncomfortable and I’ll certainly judge them for their choice of clothing, but never would I advocate for making nazi regalia illegal.
- pasabagi 4y ago
  There's a bit of a difference between a religion, and a regime that, in its ten years of power, managed to kill tens of millions and start the largest and bloodiest war of all time.
  - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
    Surely most religions have a larger body count over the years than that, if that's the criteria?
    - pasabagi 4y ago
      Well, because populations have grown so much in the last two hundred years, to the extent that a sizable chunk of all lives ever lived are after 1800 or so, I don't think that a long history in pre-modern times would move the needle that much. Also, the Nazis are just really exceptionally bloody-handed. In terms of intentionally, directly killing people, they killed like 16 million people. In terms of intentionally, indirectly killing people, their deliberate use of famine killed eight or nine million civilians in the soviet union alone. Then you add all the people that died due to massacres, or were killed as collateral damage, and you can understand why 30 million people died in the USSR, the vast majority of whom were civilians. It generally gets much worse in areas the Nazis had a longer duration of control: in Poland, they killed about one in five people. It's generally pretty hard to kill that many people before the 20th century, because the means of killing are too innefective, and the number of potential victims is too small. For what it's worth, Genghis Khan is probably the most bloody-handed pre-modern figure, so if we're going to blame religion for his behaviour, it's probably shamanism that has the highest death toll.
throw_away_8080 4y ago
It is not functioning as a garment, it is a device used to enforce modesty and mark someone as second class citizen. It is more similar to a straight jacket or a yellow star than a hat. What complicates it is some people of faith want to wear it and are persecuted for that. Making it simply a choice of clothing is reductionism and you know it.
- stormfather 4y ago
  Society enforced modesty on all of us by requiring underwear. And I'm tired of it.
- ramblenode 4y ago
  > It is not functioning as a garment, it is a device used to enforce modesty Do you consider the widespread laws in the West that require women to cover their chests in public similarly oppressive?

bartkappenburg 4y ago

Or don't wear

ybinator604g3 4y ago

Is it really a choice when you are talking about religion? I am from Iran. In the school they teach (scare) children that if you don’t wear hijab, you will be hanged from your hair and burned on a stick till eternity in hell after you die. By the way that subject is not elective. You have to pass it. What kind of choice is this? Update (context): I am not talking about the people in west who want to (not)wear hijab. I understand the premise of that choice. But this word (choice) is used daily in government propaganda. Maybe its analogous to talking about the choice of working in a cotton field to a slave. It’s a whole different environment/context. Hence my negative reaction to this word. It’s a matter of feeling which I just expressed. Nothing against someone who has a real choice, without religious stigma.

madeofpalk 4y ago
You're right - that's not a choice. No one (progressive) is arguing for that.
renewiltord 4y ago
Obviously that's the reason why people in (say) France are arguing to be allowed to wear it and people in Iran are arguing to be allowed to not wear it. It's the same argument: don't make me do something I don't want to do.
Macha 4y ago
Yes. Compare the commercial secular Christmas to the mainstream Christian versions to the biblical literalists version. People in different parts of the world treat their religion and culture with different levels of severity and it's possible for an item associated with an oppressive interpretation in one part of the world to be a cultural pride item in another.
squarefoot 4y ago
Many years ago I had a colleague who was a pretty good engineer from Morocco, also a very nice guy. He left his country and was almost disowned by his own family for being an atheist, a condition which over there I imagine is quite rare and dangerous even nowadays, although we have a good set of examples of discrimination in the west too.
- simfree 4y ago
  He probably had to leave his country to live a reasonable lifestyle. Some countries like Malaysia will not let you leave Islam if your ethnic Malay, and due to your race you are presumed to be Islamic by law. It can be very isolating and sometimes dangerous to be the outsider in an area with uniform religious and cultural beliefs.
sangnoir 4y ago
> I am not talking about the people in west who want to (not)wear hijab. What are your thoughts on western governments that attempt to ban the hijab? I can't remember if France succeeded.
- ybinator604g3 4y ago
  I think it’s a complex topic that involves religion, society and culture. In this case it’s important to know if they are singling out hijab or also other religious symbols? For instance France banned full face covers and burkas which are not even mandated by the religion if I am not mistaken. I believe banning a piece of clothing is not reasonable, like banning jeans or headscarves. On the other hand there is a lot of stigma around hijab if you choose not to wear it among some muslim families so much so that it’s not a real choice anymore and it’s not a simple piece of cloth. So I think it’s not bad to have some legal ways to protect you against your over zealous family/community but this kind of lawmaking is very prone to other issues too. Furthermore, banning and enforcing are two sides of the same authoritarian coin which is ultimately the root of the problem. It’s very complicated. I wish I had a straightforward answer.

amelius 4y ago

I don't get offended but I've noticed that when people wear the hood of their hoodies in public transit, I sometimes feel a bit uneasy about not being able to see their faces. So I'm thinking there is a non-religious aspect to the discussion.

sosborn 4y ago
I can understand that, but that's not the hoodie wearer's issue to solve.
- amelius 4y ago
  I'm not so sure about that (in the long run). If a naked person entered the bus, wouldn't it be their issue to get dressed? In the end it is about a social contract, the details of which may change with the course of time.
  - simfree 4y ago
    Nudity in public is legal in Seattle so long as your intent is not to offend.
    - amelius 4y ago
      I didn't check but I think there are lots of places where it is not legal.
      - simfree 4y ago
        I see you edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35495960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35495960 to mention social norms after I commented. Locality and social norms definitely play into this conversation, here in Seattle at least there is a culture that supports nudism, whether it's the summer solstice bike ride, certain beaches that are popular for swimming in your birthday suit, etc.
    - flangola7 4y ago

tomohelix 4y ago

The problem is these has been equated to symbols of oppression. Tbf, they serve no practical purpose and are deeply tied to religious practices that have caused lots of problems where they are from. A similar thing would be the ban of wearing nazi symbols.

toast0 4y ago
> Tbf, they serve no practical purpose It's a head covering; it covers your head, which can provide comfort depending on the environmental conditions. Depending on the specific garment and context, it may provide some privacy/anonyminity. Comparing it to nazi symbols doesn't seem right; in part because it's not purely symbolic, but also because it's only oppression when you're forced to wear it, not when you choose to. No one is calling for the star of david to be banned because Jews were forced to wear them; if someone wants to wear it, they can.

mc32 4y ago

It’s more complicated because the reason someone may want to wear it is based on indoctrination. If you have a modern sect that indoctrinated its members to serve (labor, etc) the leadership and they do it voluntarily and in addition may balk at not doing it, posing their position as “a choice” is missing the context.

spideymans 4y ago
Breaking news: we’re all indoctrinated. That’s why men typically don’t run around wearing dresses, for example. Perhaps we should examine your beliefs for indoctrination? To use your indoctrination as an excuse to remove your bodily autonomy.
- mc32 4y ago
  Agreed, but I also think there is a difference between forced indoctrination at school (or other institution) versus culture at large.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Targeted propaganda from the government is not the same as cultural norms
ramblenode 4y ago
How is this any different from belief in general? Most people's beliefs are a product of their culture. We are all indoctrinated, whether it's religion, nationalism, or tuna casserole.
- mc32 4y ago
  The ones handed down by institutions designed to indoctrinate you is different from culture in general which goes through natural filtering and change. Indoctrination usually follows some dogma with "interpreters" who tell you what it means.

4gotunameagain 4y ago

Do the people which get offended by nazi uniforms are fragile as well ? The topic is much more complicated than "fragility" as you are dismissively trying to portray it. We wear clothes in civilised societies for a reason, and different types of clothes have different types of societal effects. Your freedom ends where the the freedom of the next person's begins.

sosborn 4y ago
If I see a person nazi regalia I might feel uncomfortable and I’ll certainly judge them for their choice of clothing, but never would I advocate for making nazi regalia illegal.
pasabagi 4y ago
There's a bit of a difference between a religion, and a regime that, in its ten years of power, managed to kill tens of millions and start the largest and bloodiest war of all time.
- khochesh_kushat 4y ago
  Surely most religions have a larger body count over the years than that, if that's the criteria?
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    Well, because populations have grown so much in the last two hundred years, to the extent that a sizable chunk of all lives ever lived are after 1800 or so, I don't think that a long history in pre-modern times would move the needle that much. Also, the Nazis are just really exceptionally bloody-handed. In terms of intentionally, directly killing people, they killed like 16 million people. In terms of intentionally, indirectly killing people, their deliberate use of famine killed eight or nine million civilians in the soviet union alone. Then you add all the people that died due to massacres, or were killed as collateral damage, and you can understand why 30 million people died in the USSR, the vast majority of whom were civilians. It generally gets much worse in areas the Nazis had a longer duration of control: in Poland, they killed about one in five people. It's generally pretty hard to kill that many people before the 20th century, because the means of killing are too innefective, and the number of potential victims is too small. For what it's worth, Genghis Khan is probably the most bloody-handed pre-modern figure, so if we're going to blame religion for his behaviour, it's probably shamanism that has the highest death toll.

throw_away_8080 4y ago

It is not functioning as a garment, it is a device used to enforce modesty and mark someone as second class citizen. It is more similar to a straight jacket or a yellow star than a hat. What complicates it is some people of faith want to wear it and are persecuted for that. Making it simply a choice of clothing is reductionism and you know it.

stormfather 4y ago
Society enforced modesty on all of us by requiring underwear. And I'm tired of it.
ramblenode 4y ago
> It is not functioning as a garment, it is a device used to enforce modesty Do you consider the widespread laws in the West that require women to cover their chests in public similarly oppressive?