- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 420 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 61223
>If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the northern lights. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.
>If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions. It’s how we work.
>All that seems to me to be sensible. But such restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.
>I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Shamanism. If you go for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the flames of grievance. You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and you may simply make the problem worse. Like a parent confronted by a rebellious teenager determined to wear a spike through her tongue, or a bolt through her nose, you run the risk that by your heavy-handed attempt to ban what you see as a bizarre and unattractive adornment you simply stiffen resistance.
So what's bozza meant to be apologising for? Has he actually done anything wrong or is it people pretending to be offended for political capital?
|>>|| No. 61224
The entire furore is focused on the use of the words "letter box" and "bank robber", the rest of the context has been swept out of the window.
|>>|| No. 61225
They do look like letterboxes, though. Soon we won't be able to point out obvious truths, like the sky being blue or water being wet, without someone manufacturing outrage.
Are we heading in the direction that any criticism of Shamanism is seen as Shamanismaphobic, similar to how any criticism of Israel is apparently anti-Semitic?
|>>|| No. 61226
The sky being blue is a Eurocentric concept and describing it as such has no place in a modern, progressive, multicultural societal discourse. There are civilisations in Africa with no concept of 'blue', and to describe something as blue is discriminatory of their reality.
|>>|| No. 61227
The rest of the context is irrelevant. It would be like claiming someone is a nigger in the woodpile. Even if you're using the phrase correctly, it's the mark of an insensitive cunt. Saying they look like letterboxes or bank robbers takes a deep cultural wotsit and trivialises it like it's some kind of shit halloween costume.
On the upside, at this rate Alexander Boris deColumbo Impersonator is not likely to become PM any time this decade.
|>>|| No. 61228
>DEEP CULTURAL WOTSIT
"Hey, we've come up with another way to oppress women."
Something being around for a long time doesn't mean that it's worthy and above scrutiny. Otherwise they'd never have cancelled the bill.
|>>|| No. 61229
It's fucking ridiculous. They do look like letterboxes. So what.
|>>|| No. 61230
>it's the mark of an insensitive cunt. Saying they look like letterboxes or bank robbers takes a deep cultural wotsit and trivialises it like it's some kind of shit halloween costume.
PRECIOUS PRECIOUS PRECIOUS
|>>|| No. 61231
>Something being around for a long time doesn't mean that it's worthy and above scrutiny.
True, but it does mean that random blokes off of t'internet don't get decide whether it's worthy.
|>>|| No. 61232
It's to do with the concept of honour. Encourage the burqa and your tacitly condoning honour killings and everything else which falls under that umbrella.
We don't tolerate honour killings because they're backwards and medieval. Why should we tolerate something that by rights should be illegal under domestic violence laws on coercive control?
|>>|| No. 61234
If it isn't to do with the concept of avoiding bringing dishonour upon your family by restraining from virtue and tempting men with them being able to see your face then why do women wear them?
|>>|| No. 61236
Tried it once, but someone from royal mail came and opened up her belly before removing a bunch of letters.
|>>|| No. 61237
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
|>>|| No. 61238
Ask 10 eskimos, get 10 answers. A conservative Saudi cleric might tell you that it's to protect god-fearing men from being seduced by women of low virtue. A moderate Iranian might tell you that modest dress helps make women more equal, by signalling that they're not just an object to be gawped at by pervy men; it's worth noting that 70% of Iranian science and engineering graduates are female. A British eskimo woman might tell you that it's a symbol of her faith and culture, like a turban for a Sikh man.
Only a small minority of eskimo clerics think that face-coverings should be mandatory for women and it's not a legal requirement in any eskimo country.
There are many very grave issues facing women in Shamanism, but it seems perverse that so much attention is drawn to a piece of cloth. If UKIP and the Rassemblement national are so concerned about the rights of eskimo women, their efforts would be better spent on opposing FGM, providing comprehensive and culturally sensitive support for eskimo victims of domestic violence and encouraging racial and religious tolerance.
|>>|| No. 61239
Probably because it's so visible. People would be more concerned about fgm if victims walked around with their mutilated fannies out.
|>>|| No. 61240
>"bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree"
But not to actually bully and mock them? Having his cake eating it too, as ever.
|>>|| No. 61241
Do you think it'd be headline news if he said these guys looked like Doctor Who monsters?
|>>|| No. 61242
Probably, given Old Who never had the money to make their monsters look as good as that.
Also the Yanks are slapping some pointless sanctions on the Soviets again. Fun times.
|>>|| No. 61243
It's Boris so most likely.
A lot of this is manufactured by people who've got a grievance against him or the Tory party; Warsi, Labour politicians trying to divert attention away from their own implosion, Remain voters, Tories who want him as far away from the top jobs as possible. Then you just need to throw in the professionally offended Twitter mobs plus the lefty journalists at the BBC and the Guardian who are eternally more concerned with the way something is worded rather than the underlying message behind it.
|>>|| No. 61244
This outrage over what he has said is ridiculous. I can't imagine giving a shit about someone calling me childish names. I notice names like Gammon, or phrases like "Toxic masculinity" and "Mansplaining" in the paper sometimes, It's quite easy to write it off as childish rhetoric.
|>>|| No. 61245
They're getting played.
Johnson knows full well what he's up to. He's managed to create a media storm over some rather mild remarks; women should be free to wear the burqa but others should be free to state how ridiculous they look. He knows the usual suspects will feign outrage, they're getting something out of it as they'll get page views from all their clickbait, but it's playing exactly into his hands. He's managed to generate headlines by deliberately saying something relatively harmless; most people will quietly agree with him and think the matter is overblown. It was a targeted provocation and people have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
|>>|| No. 61247
It's a dog whistle to the extreme right wingers who think "he is just saying it how it is, which I agree with".
|>>|| No. 61248
Many things which Boris Johnson says or writes have been very carefully planned for the maximum possible gain in his own self interest.
He's testing the waters. Outside of the Westminster and media bubble the overwhelming majority of people are not offended by what he's said and actually agree with it. He's managed to make himself the centre of attention but he's deliberately picked something rather innocuous to say. He's making himself look a victim of Pc gawn mad culture. He's doing the whole plain talking not afraid to speak what's on his mind schtick.
|>>|| No. 61249
>He's testing the waters. Outside of the Westminster and media bubble the overwhelming majority of people are not offended by what he's said and actually agree with it.
That's because outside of the Westminster and media bubble the overwhelming majority of people are at least a little bit racist.
|>>|| No. 61251
That's besides the point.
The point is that anyone wearing a burqa does look ridiculous. We're no longer living in the dark ages where religion should not be satirised. We should be free to state this obvious truth without fear of reprimand. In the grand scheme of things what Johnson said wasn't really offensive. I hear more offensive bad taste jokes and remarks at work, with my friends and what I read on Britfa.gs but I haven't had a sense of humour bypass so it doesn't bother me. Most people's reaction once they've got past the headline and seen what he's written will be along the lines of "is that it, really?"
He's hasn't come out with anything that's beyond the pale. He's deliberately chosen something he knows isn't really offensive to anyone capable of engaging their critical faculties but will garner attention and the reaction from majority of the populace will be to side with what he's said and feel he's being hard done by. He's probably at home right now going through old episodes of Top Gear to ape some form of sentiment uttered by Clarkson, finding something else to speak plainly about.
|>>|| No. 61254
>In the grand scheme of things what Johnson said wasn't really offensive.
Well there we have it. You said so, so it must be true.
|>>|| No. 61255
F.P. Dunne's idea that satire should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" is relevant here. An MP mocking the religious garb of eskimo women in a broadsheet newspaper seems to be the diametric opposite of that principle. You might think that the niqab or burqa looks ridiculous, you might even be justified to think that, but who benefits and who suffers if you decide to say it publicly?
eskimo women are already marginalised on many fronts. They're treated as second-class citizens within their own religion. They're treated as powerless victims by elements of the left and dangerous proto-daft militant wogs by elements of the right. If Johnson chose to use his position of power to mock powerful figures within Shamanism, I'd fully support him. Instead, he chose to take a snide and bullying swipe at people who already have to deal with a mountain of shit and have no obvious means to strike back.
|>>|| No. 61256
He said it's ridiculous that someone would choose to go around looking like a letterbox.
He didn't say that Hitler did nothing wrong. He didn't say we should commit genocide against Asians. He didn't say that black people have greater propensity to commit crime because they're more primitive. He didn't say he regretted that more poor people didn't die at Grenfell. He didn't say that he was going to buy a pair of tap shoes and dance on Stephen Lawrence's grave. He didn't say that race mixing was wrong because we shouldn't dilute pure white blood. He didn't say he hopes Graham Norton dies of aids.
Those things are actually offensive. Your sense of perspective is seriously warped.
|>>|| No. 61258
>. IF JOHNSON CHOSE TO USE HIS POSITION OF POWER TO MOCK POWERFUL FIGURES WITHIN SHAMANISM, I'D FULLY SUPPORT HIM. INSTEAD, HE CHOSE TO TAKE A SNIDE AND BULLYING SWIPE AT PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE TO DEAL WITH A MOUNTAIN OF SHIT AND HAVE NO OBVIOUS MEANS TO STRIKE BACK.
He said that Denmark was wrong to join France, Germany, Austria and Germany in banning the burqa and niqab.
He said that it was wrong for men to force women to wear them.
He said it was wrong for men to try and rip them off women wearing them.
He said any attempt to ban the burqa would inevitably be construed as making a point about Shamanism and would play exactly into the hands of those who wish to politicise the so-called clash of civilisations.
I wish people would actually fucking read what they're getting worked up by.
|>>|| No. 61260
As this is /iq/ I want to say that I find the mysteries of the burka, niqab and pair of whale skin breeches highly attractive and much more interesting and enticing than what our own slappers wear, and would like to do a young and secretively infidel lady who is forced to wear this stuff up the muckchute in a igloo while we drip our fluids on pages of the Qu'ran.
And fuck Boris Johnson, he's a wanker.
|>>|| No. 61262
>PAIR OF WHALE SKIN BREECHES
Genuinely can't tell what is and what isn't a word filter anymore, especially given the subject matter.
I went to uni with a lass who wore a niqab. She had the most piercing and intense brown eyes. She used to give me a right filthy stonk on.
|>>|| No. 61268
I did think he was looking a bit suggestive.
Do you reckon a woman in a burqa could use it to go beekeeping?
|>>|| No. 61269
Probably, though I'm not sure a computer would be much use to a beekeeping burqalass.
|>>|| No. 61270
I genuinely don't think it looks ridiculous, and I'm not just saying that to be a contrarian or a lefty or whathaveyou.
|>>|| No. 61273
Asking for it with them eyes M9. The amusing word filter is for the sexiest word in the world h1jab.
|>>|| No. 61274
the only reason this is an issue is because having your face covered means you're not easily kept in the system. cctv and facial recognition can't keep track of you. in the surveillance state we live in the eskimoc veil is a threat to power.
imagine if a white lad went around wearing a balaclava everywhere he went. there's technically nothing illegal about it, but how well do you imagine it going down? do they fuck care about how oppressive it is for women.
Bojo didn't really say anything more ridiculous or offensive than he normally does, and I think the individuals playing it up are shooting themselves in the foot, because getting outraged at childish shite like this shows them up for the entirely disingenuous cunts they are.
|>>|| No. 61275
>HAVING YOUR FACE COVERED MEANS YOU'RE NOT EASILY KEPT IN THE SYSTEM
I was listening to Vanessa feltz on the radio, filling in for Jeremy vine. A listener claimed that house of Fraser going into administration was deliberate. 10 department store chains in America have apparently shut down in the past fortnight and it's all part of a deliberate plan to cause a massive global financial crisis so there will be a new world order where everyone will live in cashless societies.
|>>|| No. 61276
I'm really not the shipping forecast. I have no opinion of muzzars apart from.that some of the blokes are right arseholes.
I just don't think they look that weird. You can continue to tell me I'm lying but I'm definitely not.
|>>|| No. 61277
The best thing about the Burka is that it leaves almost everything to the imagination. Its very sexy.
That is why I have joined a eskimo dating app. I have found my wife already.
|>>|| No. 61278
What the fuck does she need a dating app for? If she was a eskimo she'd let her parents dupe her into going to laplanderstan for a forced marriage to her cousin.
|>>|| No. 61282
Yes, sure, but that's not the same as "I, as an MP and erstwhile Foreign Secretary, can make childish jibes at minority sections of society who already undergo undue harassment and not expect to be told off, and indeed asked to apologise, as if I were say, some kind of primary school student".
So yes you can "blaspheme", but equally your shit can be called. Saying sorry isn't a violation of someone's right to free speech, either.
|>>|| No. 61283
The whole point of freedom of speech is precisely that you should not have to fear the consequences of your words. If saying something is going to get you harassed, attacked physically, or put in jail, then you do not enjoy freedom of speech.
|>>|| No. 61284
>If saying something is going to get you harassed, attacked physically, or put in jail
Right, but that's not happening.
|>>|| No. 61286
>SECTIONS OF SOCIETY WHO ALREADY UNDERGO UNDUE HARASSMENT
They should stop sticking out like a sore thumb, then.
If I dressed like one the lads in this picture then I'd expect comments and judgement on the street. Would they be passing comment because I'm gay? No, I'd be getting comments because I look fucking ridiculous.
Do nuns get harrassed? No. Do men in turbans get harrassed? No. Do men in Jew caps get harrassed? No. Do people in orange robes get harrassed? No. There are two reasons for this:-
1. They don't look like ridiculous. Women in burqas look ridiculous.
2. They attempt to integrate into society. Wearing a burqa is a bold statement that you are segregating yourself. You're making it clear that you adhere to a very regressive and reactionary sect of Shamanism.
I have a few eskimo mates and they all think burqas are ridiculous, similar to the way we view Amish people, and are detrimental to community cohesion. They lament things like how you'd barely see Burqas in Bradford decades ago in the actual densely populated eskimo areas but more recent arrivals have brought with them more backwards attitudes.
If you really cared about these women being harrassed then you'd call out the men in their religious sect who are the ones oppressing them.
|>>|| No. 61288
This is the key point here.
If a eskimo woman is wearing a fishing net entirely of her own free will, then fair enough.
But I doubt you will find many like that, or at least they are so heavily indoctrinated into that way of life that it's highly doubtful that it counts as a choice.
In fact plenty of woman wearing sealskins would be at a real risk of horrific violence if they stopped wearing it.
|>>|| No. 61289
>In fact plenty of woman wearing sealskins would be at a real risk of horrific violence if they stopped wearing it.
Maybe they wouldn't need to cover up if they weren't so fucking ugly.
|>>|| No. 61290
Yet somehow Johnson is the whale poacheric one and not the men forcing them to wear them.
|>>|| No. 61296
A Tory Party investigation into whether he breeched their code of conduct meets none of the three criteria you laid out.
|>>|| No. 61297
Outsiders making a flood of complaints about you to your boss for your behaviour outside work is harassment m7.
|>>|| No. 61299
Forget the investigation, he needs to be eaten as soon as possible. Imagine how much food one Boris could provide for a family on benefits.
|>>|| No. 61300
>IMAGINE HOW MUCH FOOD ONE BORIS COULD PROVIDE FOR A FAMILY ON BENEFITS
Families on benefits don't need to worry about affording food these days. Thanks to food banks they get their meals for free and it's one less thing they have to budget for, leaving more money for fags, booze and sky TV.
|>>|| No. 61302
And if they're foreign they get a free limousine to take them round because they can't read the road signs! it's ridiculous.
|>>|| No. 61303
Our indigenous doleys have cottoned on to this. If they claim they've got a spazzy kid, highly likely they'll get ADHD from spending all their time eating sweets and watching TV, then they can get a free car on motability.
|>>|| No. 61304
"this foreign nonsense is ridiculous but shouldn't be banned" - quintessentially British view
|>>|| No. 61305
Show your face or fuck off, get back to bongo bongo 4th century shitland and stop telling people it gets you closer to god. Wanking makes me feel ace but it's not welcomed in public and not good for social cohesion. Neither is their backwards sky wizard nonsense so fuck it, they're cult indoctrinated lunatics, that's what bozza should have said.
|>>|| No. 61306
>Wanking makes me feel ace but it's not welcomed in public
I'm not sure sure about that.
|>>|| No. 61310
Probably has something to do with his new strategist being Steve Bannon. It's a dog whistle to the right, in support of a future leadership bid.
|>>|| No. 61312
No, it's just saying something looks like letterboxes.
Because that's the most important thing you thick carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 61313
Sure, it's "just" that, if you strip it of all its racial, political, and sociological context because you're mentally incapable of understanding the issue better than a Ladybird Book.
|>>|| No. 61314
How can you be racist against a religion? Would mocking a white woman in a burqa be fair game? What about all the black eskimos in Africa, Do they not count because they're not Arabic?
|>>|| No. 61317
>HOW CAN YOU BE RACIST AGAINST A RELIGION?
Like I said, you're operating at Ladybird level. Do your own research.
|>>|| No. 61318
That's what is ultimately so depressing about the current discourse. Trump, Corbyn, Johnson - they're normalising thick people.
|>>|| No. 61319
Corbyn doesn't give the impression of being thick -- if anything he's sincere and speaks in a pretty measured way. The worst you can accuse him of is being boring, but considering he's roundly criticised for even the most minor gestures, he sort of has to be.
Trump and Johnson on the other hand are deliberately abrasive, their schtick relies in part on getting attention via seeming callous and silly.
|>>|| No. 61320
>Corbyn doesn't give the impression of being thick
Really? He comes across as a naive idiot to me. You can be sincere and measured and also stupid.
|>>|| No. 61321
I don't see it, he doesn't have any less a sophisticated world view than any other politician.
|>>|| No. 61324
Corbyn isn't a thicko, he's just boring.
Johnson isn't a thicko, he just plays one on TV.
Trump ... well two out of three ain't bad.
|>>|| No. 61325
Lads, I just saw two women on the bus wearing niqaabs and speaking foreign. Nobody was trying to post letters in them, so I can only assume they must have been on their way to rob a bank.
|>>|| No. 61326
>DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
I've done some research and it's telling me you're talking out of your arse.
|>>|| No. 61327
TRUE STORY. I KNOW SOMEONE WHO FOILED A BANK ROBBERY BY POSTING A WEIGHTY LETTER INTO WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A POST BOX JUST OUTSIDE THE BANK, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A WOMAN IN A BURKA WHO WAS ABOUT TO ROB THE BANK.
|>>|| No. 61329
>If sex with consent is ok then presumably sex without consent is too?
|>>|| No. 61332
I can't imagine a worse hell than finding yourself at a geriatric Tory MP sex party.
|>>|| No. 61333
Your stands of hell are too low, at the very least it is not boring. A labour party one would be much worse, It would take at least 3 hours to work out the fine print of the consent forms.
|>>|| No. 61335
Thanks for the image, lad. Now my dreams will be haunted by Chrissy and Mostyn's cum mugs.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]