Takapapatapaka @ Takapapatapaka @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

242

Joined

2 yr. ago

The main problem with this subject is that the abaya is not a religious clothing strictly speaking. It is not enforced by any muslim sacred text, a lot of muslim women do not wear it, whereas non-muslim women wear it. It is rather typical from the arabic culture than from the muslim religion (it originated from bedouin culture in the first place).

Here in France people are mad about secularism because of an old hate of Christian Church, but nowadays it is rather used to discriminate jews and muslims. (At school, yarmulke and headscarf are banned, but christian crosses are allowed if they're not too big. Every day i saw people in school with christian crosses around the neck or as earrings, and no one bothered them, while they were harassing girls with a headscarf.)

Imo here the government is just creating a new debate on a stupid question, just to scare people about muslims and give hard right politicians a bone to chew, as they always do. While everyone talks and is afraid about what teenagers could wear, people talk less about the other laws they are passing, for having more control over Internet or whatever they want.

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge's approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to "protect minor"

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people's identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like "Pirating contents harms artistic creation" (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that "There is no practical difference" between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3

An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.

This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.

I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it's okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as "There is no practical difference", it makes the whole thing ridiculous.

In the end, saying there is only "one viable [...] party", and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single "viable" party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?

I agree on the point that "they are racist/pedo because of the power they receive" is pretty much false in this situation.

But i would say that this is not the only meaning behind "Power corrupts". (What follows is only a personnal opinion, there may be some wrong usage of terms or anything) To me, it also means that power corrupts our ways of thinking : believing in a strong power, even if you do not hold it, tends to makes this power more important than human lives or conditions. Like "Police is important, so it's okay if some peoples get hurt to protect it". In other words, the more you believe in power, the more it may become an end rather than a tool. This is were the corruption is to me.

I think that people get racist because they believe in some kind of great cause that should held power (like Homeland, Historical Background, Race, etc.). Then they consider normal to use power for this cause, even if it is against other people. Maybe it's not the same thing for getting attracted to young people. But doing pedo crimes always involve some power in the very act of it, and to some extent in the decision making that led to it.

To sum it up, imo the hate and weird attraction of those cops basically mean that they think they have, or that they should have, a legitimate power over other people (minorities, kids, etc.). Even if it's not the specific power that they got as cops that corrupted them, it is their belief in power more generally. (and as other said, the power they got as cops probably reinforced all of this, as a vicious circle).

I'm not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I'm not entirely sure of what i'm saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don't know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

So first "professional" photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part "new" customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

So at first, they did not really stole painters' jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

At that point, some of the painter's client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn't "dry" (don't know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).

Okay, je crois que j'y vois plus clair, merci pour les explications.

Si j'ai bien compris, pour vous l'essence du boycott, c'est l'organisation et la revendication qu'il y a derrière, et pas le simple fait qu'une ou plusieurs personnes décide de ne plus acheter chez untel.

J'en ai effectivement un usage différent, notamment parce que je n'ai pas de terme alternatif qui me vienne pour désigner un arrêt collectif et soudain de la fréquentation d'un commerçant, mais aussi parce que je l'entends être utilisé comme ça autour de moi.

J'ai toujours du mal à comprendre l'intérêt de la distinction par contre, pas seulement parce que je l'utilise pas mais aussi parce que pour moi c'est pas le coeur du sujet. Boycott ou "simple" méfiance, dans les deux cas les gens se méfient, et c'est ça qui me semble être le problème : le boulanger a subi des attaques verbales et matérielles qui ont conduit à la fermeture de sa boulangerie faute de client.

(ceci dit, je comprends mieux si c'est juste un réflexe de grammairien énervé, ça m'arrive aussi fréquemment, c'est juste que comme j'utilise pas le mot dans le même sens, ça me paraît pas évident)

De l'ostracisation, c'est plus fort, non ? C'est quand une personne est exclue d'un groupe. Là, il n'a pas été exclu d'un groupe auquel il appartenait, il n'a pas été banni de la ville, on ne lui a pas interdit l'accès aux magasins. On a "juste" arrêté d'acheter ses produits, ce qui correspond au pendant pratique du boycott.

Pour la question de trancher, je ne vois pas trop sur quoi et pourquoi on aurait besoin de trancher. J'ai aussi l'impression que tu opposes différentes causes possibles (soit un harcèlement boycott / soit un mauvais comportement). Mais d'une part, les deux ne semblent pas incompatibles, et d'autre part, dans tous les cas, il y a une forme de boycott (ou d'ostracisation, si tu y tiens). Peu importe la raison, il semble y avoir eu de fait une baisse massive de fréquentation dans sa boulangerie.

Au final, je ne vois toujours pas pourquoi l'idée de boycott est remise en doute : déjà parce que ça semble évident que les gens ont arrêté de venir chez lui, et ensuite parce que l'alternative que tu proposes (l'ostracisation) me paraît équivalente au boycott. Ca ne change pas vraiment le problème qu'il ait été victime de boycott ou d'ostracisation, si ?

J'aime beaucoup la philosophie des sceptiques, accepter de tout remettre en cause, mais pour l'instant j'ai l'impression qu'on pose juste un doute comme ça, sans aller plus loin et je vois pas à quoi ça sert, j'avoue que ça me perturbe.

C'est cool que ton commentaire soit nuancé, effectivement c'est des sujets tendus et on a tendance à lire ce qu'on craint. Par contre, y'a un aspect que je ne m'explique toujours pas, même en relisant.

Si je comprends bien, tu avances :

• qu'il n'y aurait pas eu de boycott, et que ça ne suffirait donc pas à expliquer la situation, il faudrait un autre élément (simple supposition de ta part, sans accuser qui que ce soit de mensonge ou autre)
• que se plaindre de racisme suscite la méfiance des gens (en le présentant simplement comme un fait, et même un fait malheureux)

Pour moi, ces deux éléments ne sont pas vraiment compatibles : la méfiance des gens constitue un boycott en soi (on peut en discuter, peut-être pas au sens strict de boycott organisé, mais en tout cas, du point de vue du boulanger, le résultat et le ressenti est le même). J'ai du mal à saisir comment on peut douter du boycott si on est convaincu de la méfiance des gens.

Mais je ne suis pas certain d'avoir bien compris ton commentaire : est-ce que j'ai loupé un truc ?

Pour avoir fait les JMJ il y a quelques années, j'ai bien ressenti ce côté conservateur, et surtout du côté des français-es, les gens d'autres pays que j'ai rencontrés étaient vraiment plus cool. Après, j'étais parti avec un contingent de cathos orléanais-es (donc bien bien cathos), et il y avait sans doute la barrière de la langue avec les autres nationalités.

Mais quand même, ça colle bien avec l'explication de Raison du Cleuziou : j'ai eu le sentiment que les jeunes polonais-es, qui vivent dans une société hyper religieuse, tenaient moins aux traditions que les français-es avec qui j'étais parti.

Par contre, ce qui est marrant c'est que c'est aussi une grosse expérience collectiviste : tout le monde a la même nourriture, les mêmes conditions de vie, on marche des kilomètres en groupe pour dormir par terre avec des centaines de milliers de personnes, etc. Et personne pour râler que "C'est littéralement le communisme bla bla bla"

La religion est rigide par essence

Je ne suis pas si sûr, surtout si on ne se centre pas sur la religion catholique. Pour avoir été chez cathos et protestants, ces derniers sont quand même beaucoup plus souples sur énormément de sujets, et la forme de cathé que j'ai expérimenté coté protestant était vraiment différente.

Même, elle rassemble les deux aspects (ludique et pédagogique) que tu sembles opposer pour le cathé catho : on lisait des textes religieux, on en discutait ensemble, ça partait même en débat philosophique parfois. Et d'un autre côté, on faisait des créations, notamment créer un spectacle de Noël, avec des sketchs qui parodient des passages de la bible ou des trucs du style.

Et tout le reste était comme ça, moins dogmatique et plus terre-à-terre (sans dire que c'est forcément mieux, juste que c'est différent). Le culte (équivalent de la messe) était pas forcément fixe dans son déroulé, il y avait parfois des interventions qui se rajoutaient, des passages que le pasteur enlevait, etc. Par contre, ce qui était plus fixe, c'était qu'à la sortie, il y avait du thé et du café et tout le monde pouvait discuter.

Bref, j'y ai senti énormément moins de rigueur, moi qui était déjà non-croyant je m'y suis senti à ma place et j'avais beaucoup moins l'impression qu'on m'imposait quoi que ce soit. Et pourtant, la foi des gens là-bas était très prégnante, il y avait un esprit de communauté très fort.

Je pense que pour le coup, le catholicisme est beaucoup plus rigide (c'est même pour ça que le protestantisme existe), et sans trop m'y connaître je dirais que c'est similaire à d'autres courants, genre christianisme orthodoxe, islam, judaïsme. Et qu'à l'inverse, d'autres religions sont moins guindées, genre protestantisme, hindouisme, bouddhisme (encore une fois, j'y connais vraiment rien à part catho et protestants, c'est juste mes impressions).

Ooook, merci de l'explication :D !

Et encore quelques vies brisées pour des morales à deux balles, ça me file la gerbe

Question secondaire, mais c'est quoi un tanky du FN ?

Ca donne l'impression que c'est de l'IA en tout cas !

J'ai vu que le pilote, mais il était vraiment cool ! Les personnes derrière ont géré sur l'utilisation des IA

Je me laisse souvent perdre dans les recommandations, quitte à aller assez loin, ça m'arrive de tomber sur des petites perles comme ça

Le titre est accrocheur ! Et en vrai c'est intéressant, j'avais jamais vu ça comme ça

Ooooh ok, got it. Thank you very much for explaining !

Hey, noobie question here, I dont know much about fediverse, so don't mind correct me :

Is it a good thing ?

I first had the feeling that it ain't, but everybody in the comment section seems happy with it. My knowledge of the Fediverse is this :

• Federation aims to decentralization
• The aim beyond decentralization is to prevent one entity (like Reddit) to have too much power over the content created and shared.
• When Meta said they wanted to connect Threads to the fediverse, people seemed concerned and/or opposed to it. It seemed coherent to me as the federation with Meta was seen as a danger for decentralization, because a big entity could have access to the content. (I feel like I probably misunderstood that part though).

Now, I (personnally) consider that any state is as a big entity as big companies, and that we should feel as much concerned about their power over content and informations. This is of course debatable and maybe the origin of my misunderstanding.

So here's my true question : do i miss any point in this, that could make me understand why you consider it a good thing ?