darq

So they didn’t rule if the “no hats” rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.

And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn’t the point.

The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.

We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.

The “no hats” rule in this case wasn’t a “no hats” rule, but a “no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody” rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.

Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.

If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.

No. It’s not another matter. It’s the entire matter. That’s my point.

I know what I described is your second option. But I’m deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.

The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.

Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)

And maybe that rule is the stupid one.

So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?

Except it isn’t necessarily claiming a special status.

The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.

And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?

They wouldn’t be. The removal of a ban doesn’t somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They’d be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.

So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides

Still a false dichotomy here.

To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”

The option is not to allow “religion” to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.

A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I’m not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.

If there isn’t a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn’t affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn’t affect anyone.

That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.

That is a very false dichotomy.

I would love to do something like this, except it’s way too goofy with the attached controllers.

Steamdeck in a tablet form factor would be perfect.

Except if you have enough money, it’s not even gambling anymore. The only way you’d lose is if everybody loses.

And that’s completely ignoring the fact that enough money lets you influence the rules of the game to tilt the odds in your favour.

It’s not radical at all. It’s just ineffectual, unfortunately.

Brainworms.

Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.

Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?

On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.

Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.

I quite simply do not believe that for even a second.

Let’s not pretend that you actually give a damn about transgender people. This is just concern trolling.

And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.

I personally prefer spaces where everyone can voice any shit. Censorship is for lazy minds and a dull audience. IMHO.

I always find this take to be remarkably short-sighted.

Because if you actually want to hear diverse opinions, you have to cultivate a space where diverse people, with diverse experiences, feel free to speak.

Pretty much every space that tolerates open bigotry becomes deeply unpleasant for the targets of that bigotry. Which means those people tend to leave.

Which in turn means that those spaces soon turn into the dullest echo chamber, populated only by people unaffected the bigotry. Sure no views were censored. You just harass everybody different off the platform. The net effect is the same.

You can’t just block someone doxxing you. And it’s a lot different when it’s not one person, or even a handful of people, but thousands of people who are sincerely furious with you because of things they’ve convinced themselves that you have done.

There is a difference between simple prejudice, and prejudice that is backed by systemic power.

Both are bad of course. But one has the ability to ruin your day, while the other has the ability to ruin your life.

In most progressive theory, racism is explicitly about power, not merely individual prejudice. That isn’t a new definition of racism, but it is a different definition than most of us learn when we are younger.

A bare keyboard attached to a screen, that I could plug my phone (possibly running Phosh) and use it as a hardware for a laptop experience

Those exist!

They’re called “lapdocks”.

Ah okay, I figured that made more sense.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?