You are clearly confused. I am not interested in preserving anyone’s ability to oppress anyone else. My concern is for the immediate, tangible, practical effect this ban will have on those women who are forced to wear the niqab or burqa. If we allow that this ban is intended to help those women (I doubt that it is but…

I just cannot understand this show for some reason. I can do bleak and I can do weird but watching this show is like turning sharply into a wall.

So, you’re arguing that it’s better to allow them to be oppressed such that they must remain covered? That this is somehow better and less oppressive?

No.

The Wikipedia article does not answer my question. You’ll note that it merely says the mandatory unveiling was “significant for the desegregation of women.” “Significant” does not necessarily mean “beneficial” and beyond that the Wikipedia article does nothing to indicate how the unveiling was significant. Also note…

How does banning the burqa or niqab help women who are forced to wear them?

How will this partial ban help women forced to wear the burqa or niqab? How would a total ban help?

In what way is this better than the 2012 and 2015 laws? They all seem very similar--they all ban face coverings in some public contexts--and they all do the same exact nothing to help women who are forced to burqas or niqabs.

This ban does nothing to help women who are forced to wear burqas.

Would you trust a doctor in Infomercial Land though?

But, the liberal lecture about who’s a human is super short. It goes like this: everyone.

And she was doing it while talking on the phone too! Does she not realize that the person on the other end can’t see her stupid gesture of misplaced rage?

Now how that translated to discrimination because she’s a white Trump voter, I have no idea

It’s important to keep in mind that the men in this scenario are not simply some male commenters under a news article; they are TV personalities on a major news network. Their opinions carry a great deal of weight due to that platform and they are using that platform to publicly discredit a woman’s experience of…

The idea isn’t really that men (for example) are barred from having/expressing opinions on sexism simply because they are men. Rather the intent is to ensure that women have the opportunity to express their opinions since they personally experience sexism. In general society, women’s experiences with and opinions on…

I’m pretty sure “counseling” in this case means “following the chain of disciplinary action” not seeing a therapist.

“Hair Fuhrer” is particularly good for the German pun.

I think it’s oversimplifying to ignore the racial component. Clinton won the majority of voters with incomes below the national average. If it was just about Clinton failing to address poor people (and I agree that her campaign did fail in that regard), logically Trump should have taken that demographic.

Oh this meeting absolutely did nothing to endear Trump to the press. The thing is that that may not matter; you don’t have to like someone to pretend to get along and these news organizations may very well be willing to pretend to get along in order to preserve their access to the White House.

That is so perfect that I’m now gleefully anticipating the next time that stupid Skittles thing comes up so I can say this.