whoopingcoughtracy
WhoopingCoughTracy
whoopingcoughtracy

I’m inherently cautious of the “believe them” rhetoric because we, as a nation, did that once before, back in the 80s with child molestation cases - “a child would not lie about this, believe them.” And it led to ruined lives, unjust convictions and a ton of messes. It became seen as offensive to question a victim’s

I'm...not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it recognizes the particular challenges of prosecuting sexual assault. On the other hand, the rep from the ACLU is very correct. After a long period of time, the case would essentially hinge on testimony. And here's the thing - testimony isn't exactly the greatest

But “a different understanding” does not make them morally or even legally equivalent. Multiple human rights orgs and entities have stated unequivocally that many of the French “secularism” laws are, in fact, human rights violations (particularly the prohibition on religious wear in schools). The US version has not

Except the UN standards are that the practice of faith can only be restricted in instances in which a compelling interest requires it. You are arguing that since the laws are on the books, that is permissible, which is a logical fallacy. I am pointing out that those laws can exist and still be found to be to be human

Um, the US is overwhelmingly religious NOW. The vast majority of white Americans are Christians - same as those Latinos. So there actually isn’t any religious conflict with them. And I know you might not have the best English, but I thought you quick enough to pick up on the /sarc tag, but obviously, you did not (a

I didn’t say to be happy about it - I said it’s happening. France is changing. The percentage of non-white people in France is going up, the percentage of Caucasians is decreasing. And most of those POC have their ethnic origins in places like the Middle East, Africa, etc. Predominantly Muslim areas.

Nope, still not seeing any point - because I can get the basic concept that simply because two people belong to a common group, that does not make them the same. Unless all Christians are responsible for Eric Rudolph, all atheists are responsible for Craig Hicks, etc.

But the difference is that even in Germany, they totally get that the Holocaust restrictions are out of the norm. They are in place because the horror of that event was so severe, and the impact to the nation and the continent so traumatic, that it is worth exempting those things from freedom of speech (and those laws

Oh, I'm not disputing their concerns about water quality. I just speaking about the concerns unique to the tribe. the water quality thing is a concern of any community, regardless of race, that lives within proximity to one of these pipelines. The burial land is a unique concern of the Native Americans.

Copying aside, I'd be terrified to wear these outdoors. I live in an area that could be called fairly "messy" and I'd be terrified of some curb water destroying these or something similar. They're too pretty to be actual shoes!

It's not owned by them. The burial space is about half a mile north of the reservation's boundary. The tribe technically does not have rights to it. That is likely because the burial site could have been "lost" and was not included in the parameters of the reservation when it was originally drawn up, and could have

The tribe wasn’t even asking for they to do that, just yet. They were asking for a chance to conduct in-depth studies to determine what exactly is at the site (how many remains, artifacts, etc.) - THEN come up with options. And yes, there are options - preserving the site, re-interment elsewhere, etc. People believe

What’s especially upsetting about this is that these types of things are very preventable. People try to represent the Natives as being stubborn and not wanting to give up a piece of land. However, the primary concern of many tribes is not the land itself, but the remains and artifacts that are there. What they were

It just sounds like white French people are realizing that their nation is growing less white and more religious (with Islam growing the fastest) and you're all having panic attacks that your precious "culture" might be changing and OMG STOP THEM before they toss out the wine and foie gras. Seriously, if it weren't

Except Islam dictates that both men and women present themselves modestly. The difference is that when it comes to women, the differences are far more stark, given that women generally are pushed to wear less than men (at least in the West). Muslim men ARE directed to modest dress, but it’s harder to recognize because

Also, "secularism" is not this. Secularism is a restraint on the STATE - not on individuals. Secularism means that your government cannot promote or support one or more faiths to the exclusion of the others. Secularism has never been an excuse to restrict the religious freedoms of individuals. Ever. If you think it

Except there are these things called human rights. And, well, human rights don’t begin and end at borders. The UN has kinda said that human rights are inherent to the human, and no matter where we are, we have them and no state should be interfering with them. And there's this little issue that the freedom to practice

But remember, the next time there's a terror attack, they'll once again do a "oh, they hate the freedoms we have" all the while denying actual freedom to those very same people.

Except the Koran does not mandate covering up anything other than parts like breasts and genitals (look it up, it’s true). And "completely covered up?" You do know that there are multiple variations of Islamic dress. Some women cover their bodies but leave their heads uncovered, some cover the hair, some cover the

That helps if people actually step up to support her. Keyboard warriors don’t do much. Trust me, I’ve met plenty of former convicts (and let’s be clear, she technically is still a convict with a record) who have been very frank in saying that getting out doesn’t mean much if you don’t have support, can’t get a job,