>Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing
The states that brought Germany down in both world wars were just as nationalistic at the time. Even the commies brought it back when they needed it the most - and it worked.
Also, since the country in question here is India - without nationalism, they would still be a colony.
This is exactly what's going to happen, not just with PWAs but with all websites. The mechanism ("Google Safe Browsing") is in place, precedents are being set, the number of hysterical ideologues who will support that is growing.
But on the bright side, I think if it was Mozilla with 90% of the browser market and not Google, this would've happened already.
Trying to wave away this debate by just shouting “RACIST! NAZI!” contributes nothing meaningful to a debate that is sorely missing from society.
Edit: why is this controversial and the post I'm replying to not? We both advocate the exact same thing: to abolish a founding principle of western civilization because sometimes people die. Hell, there's even a quite large disparity between the number of deaths caused by those two principles - my argument has way more merit.
I'd really love to see why these two cases are totally different and incomparable. Three paragraphs of mental gymnastics or less though, please!
Religion is not banned in France, that's a great misunderstanding of the concept of laicity.
Laicity means that religion is kept away from the State, it has no impact whatsoever on private practice and definitely nothing to do with it being 'banned'
What do you mean Religion is banned in France?
I'm curious about what sort of twisted broad exaggeration and misunderstanding do you have to believe to drop something like that?
To be fair, the NYT's reporting of Macron's limited and perfectly reasonable attempts to combat rampant fundamentalism might give an uninformed reader a reason to believe he was some authoritarian nutjob. But that's yet another symptom of the NYT's habit of lashing out at any perspective other than their very limited one.
Yeah, it's strange that Americans on the whole are not well versed in what secualrism means.
They think it's some sort state-enforced communist atheism or some anti-religious-freedom agenda, without understanding the pains the country went through in the past 300 years (sometimes to the brink of civil war) to remove religion from the State and ensure religious freedom and equality for all.
For most, religion is a personal matter. It starts becoming an issue when it is used as a political ideology that aims to destabilise the State.
It happened before with Catholicism and there are now some fringe Islamist movements that want the same.
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words considering HackerNews nitpicking, but in france display of religious symbols (such as wearing a cross) is banned in public places (mostly). I wrote it that way for effect, thinking that people would be familiar with the french laws.
I have no "twisted broad exaggeration and misunderstanding" of belief. I don't think this chain of comments has a good tone, and won't reply further.
> but in france display of religious symbols (such as wearing a cross) is banned in public places
That is not true; you're free to have religious symbols in public places. What you cannot do is wear them ostensibly if you're acting as an official for a public service. Teacher ? no cross/kippa/etc. while you're teaching. Cop ? same. Mayor in the process of marrying a couple ? same again.
Parent helping teachers during a school outing ? you're perfectly allowed to have such signs visible, you're not an official representative of the French republic. Same goes in public places in general.
It's banned (not just in France) because there is are existing laws against face-covering and religion is not above that.
There is also a perfectly rational thinking behind a reciprocity of rights: if you can see me but I can't see you then we're not equal.
There are also fierce debates around the role of women, ensuring equal opportunities in society, and the fact that ideology (whether religious or not) should not remove citizens from their rights and duties.
Of course, any of this is always open for debatable, and it is debated, at length, politically, socially, philosophically and these issues are always in flux, between those who want more restrictions in the name of greater freedom for all, and those who want less in the name of greater freedom for all.
The french debate on the face-covering ban was well broadcasted internationally, and it was clear to me then that it was about burqas and niqabs. The law came in place when there were thousands of people wearing religious face coverings, not before. I do not agree with the sentiment of your first paragraph, in fact it seems to me that you are being either intentionally misleading or ignorant.
There were existing rules against covering your face in some situations but you are perfectly right that the law in 2010 was triggered by the rise of radical islam and the (perceived or real) problem that full head coverage place on Republican values[1].
>And he said that somehow it's not a religious symbol.
The full sentence: "It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement."
Basically, "some think it's a religious sign, but we don't agree". And most Muslims in France don't either as the wearing of burqas and niqabs was quite uncommon in the first place (some estimates placed the number of women wearing them at around 2000).
We can argue on the merit of forbidding full-covering or whether there was really a need for all that noise but there is a reasoning and much public debate on the matter.
From your original comment, you seem to disagree, but in France people are free to practice any religion they wish, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the country's values and laws. So your statement of "Religion is already banned in places such as France" -without further characterisation- is clearly inflamatory and false.
If there were a law that banned cross shaped objects, and then someone said "well, we aren't banning a religious symbol! All things in a cross shape are banned" this would obviously be a dishonest argument.
We don't have to play games here, or be dishonest about what the purpose of the ban was.
> was triggered by the rise of radical islam
Ok, so then you agree that it was literally created to target certain religion practices... That is what people are saying. That is a target law, meant to attack a certain religious group, specifically that of "fundamentalist islam".
It was meant to attack some representation of fundamentalist Islam.
Most Muslims do not believe in the requirement for burqas and niqabs. There is no such prescription in the Qur'an itself, only a requirement for modesty that some fundamentalists interpret as full concealment.
I wholeheartedly agree. Private companies should be free of regulation and be free to do whatever they want, like refusing service to whoever they want - nazis, flat-earthers, homosexuals, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, blacks, etc.
The reason we have specific protected-class carve-outs is because the default, outside of the need for protected classes, is exactly that. Private companies are free to discriminate except in cases where society has determined that discrimination is harmful to society.
Now, if one wants to have a conversation about the societal benefits of QAnon, or broadcasting information that is re-enforcing the President's overt attempt to thwart the American election for his own benefit, we can go through the front door and have that conversation. But if one wants to fall back on general principles of "Businesses should be required to associate with everyone, all the time, forever!" we quickly find society has never actually agreed with that line.
I'm wondering if you're implying that there's something wrong with having such a preference though. You have provided some interesting statistics, would you mind if I did so as well?
Oh reeeeeeeeeeally? You didn't think it was "needed"?
>Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
It is a very widely accepted notion (among everyone who matters) that ethnostates have no place in the modern world. Hell, it is nearly as universally accepted that the very concept of "ethnicity" is problematic.
So why should it not be applied in these cases? Why do some groups deserve their own land, but others don't? Either we all do or nobody does.
It's not more diverse on unmoderated platform it's the opposite. Unmoderated platform (like chans) mostly attract those who despise any censorship, that's far from everybody.
It's impossible to have a diverse opinion when the range of acceptable opinions is enforced from on high on threat of banishment. At least the worst that will happen on an average chan is that people will yell at you.
I used 4chan a lot and got to know a lot of people of a subcommunity that started there nearly a decade ago, and "4chan has become an alt-right hellhole and I don't go back because of that" became a common enough position among them over the last few years. I get the impression from a few of the progressive online communities I've dipped into that there's a number of ex-4channers that got sick of the culture shift at 4chan, but it's hard to quantify. A lot of people on Mastodon use it specifically because it has more protective rules than Twitter.
I don't think people like to talk too much about why they leave online hangouts, because it's like admitting defeat, because people still at the place won't sympathize with you because they either disagree with your criticisms or think you're slandering the place (or else they'd have already left too), and because outsiders who agree with your criticisms of the place may have other criticisms of the place and judge you for being associated with or expecting differently of the place.
