324
Womens rights (lemmy.ml)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 54 points 1 month ago

The framing of this suggests that this is only against women, men also have swimwear codes in France. It's crazy

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 82 points 1 month ago

Looks like they have em in the USA too

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Time to jail this repugnant dress code violator!

[-] ShaggyBlarney@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

We don't need to go that far. It's not like he's wearing a tan suit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MrKoyun@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Come on now, they just wanna see Zohran without his clothes on! Now we can't blame them for that...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 month ago
[-] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 month ago

Correct, shorts are also banned. The same city tried to change that to but got shot down there too.

Since state and religion are separated, public pools cannot make an exception based on religion. France had fairly strict hygienic rules for public swimming pools, which prohibit loose fitting garments.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Senal@programming.dev 46 points 1 month ago
[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 month ago

The amount of Reddit Atheists showing up here who would wish China was actually putting Uyghur Muslims in extermination camps is off the charts.

[-] ILikeToMeow@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In my view, one isn't really an atheist if they are a liberal (or conservative, but I repeat myself) as it is effectively another religion, with Capital as it's "god", it is kind of like those liberals that call themselves "socialist" and support controlled opposition, compatible "leftist", and friend of epstein, bernie sanders.

Edit: for some reason I can't see the rest of the comments while logged in, so I'll put it here: I think a more accurate and inclusive phrase would be "freedom of religion or atheism", as it would be shitty if one had to declare some religion or another without just "none" as an option.

Edit: Edit: From the rest of this thread I think people may be confused, you cannot just "ban" the "opiate of the masses", as long as people are in pain they will seek a painkiller, and denying it to them just turns those very people against you, if the world becomes your enemy you have little chance. To reach synthesis you must collapse the contradiction by combining elements of thesis and anti-thesis in such a manor that it favors the non toxic elements of both and becomes stable.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 month ago

The fact that this comment section is full of "removed by mods" but still has so much racist nonsense... this topic really makes the scratched liberals come out of the woodwork.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago

Please report those comments so we can get to them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mlg@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

Comments section validating my hatred for France.

[-] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is G*rmany erasure

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rzadkie@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

To all you fucking reddit atheists

Atheism without class struggle is just white supremacy

[-] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If by atheism you mean anti-islamism you might have a case. 'lacking belief in a god is inherently white' is a fucking wild take.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The resurrection of ‘new atheism’ - As white supremacy reigns supreme in the US, a new book seeks to bring back to the fore one of its ideological branches.

Their works – Dawkins’s, The God Delusion, Harris’s, The End of Faith, Dennett’s, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and Hitchens’s, God Is Not Great – were all essentially written as a blind reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and all zoomed in on Islam and the Muslim world, demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of both.

Needless to say, none of the four was able to offer any serious historical understanding of this terror act, why it happened, what it meant, or how to prevent similar acts of wanton violence in the future. Nor did they make any intellectually challenging or noteworthy contribution to the millennia-old debate on belief and disbelief in God.

That publishers have chosen to resurrect, today, this 12-year-old Islamophobic backslapping session advertised as a “landmark discussion about modern atheism” is indeed quite telling. With white supremacy currently flourishing in the US and elsewhere, a book on “new atheism” – a pseudo-intellectual movement that has heavily contributed to its rise – would surely sell.

Before proceeding any further, let us be clear: Atheism as such is a perfectly healthy proposition and the world, including the Muslim part of it, has never been devoid of atheists – all the power to them.

Across religions and cultures, there are decent and reasonable atheists, as there are equally decent and reasonable believers, who can and should openly engage in debate about religion and the belief in God without succumbing to hatred and convictions in one’s supremacy. Such open and honest conversations are indeed healthy for any community or nation and should be encouraged.

So who are these four “new atheist” crusaders (yes, they may deny it, but they are indeed very much the product of the white Western Christian crusader tradition)? They are all white older men, who have never embarked on studying Islam, do not speak Arabic – the language of the Qur’an – and certainly have no special insight into any Muslim community on earth. They are, literally, illiterate.

[-] spacesatan@lazysoci.al 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If I'm trying to make a point with a single bolded sentence I would maybe choose my words carefully and not use the term for a broad group if I'm talking about a specific subset. They didn't say 'the new atheism movement' they said 'atheism'.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

This is about how Atheism can (and has) be used for colonialism, not that it necessarily follows or must be an integral part of it.

Ironically the New Atheist movement primarily just recycles crusader-age Christian propaganda

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] prole 20 points 1 month ago

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this other weird baggage

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Frans Fanon - A DYING COLONIALISM

We have seen how colonial society, the colonial administration, perceives the veil, and we have sketched the dynamics of the efforts undertaken to fight it as an institution and the resistances developed by the colonized society. At the level of the individual, of the private European, it may be interesting to follow the multiple reactions provoked by the existence of the veil, which reveal the original way in which the Algerian woman manages to be present or absent.

For a European not directly involved in this work of conversion, what reactions are there to be recorded? The dominant attitude appears to us to be a romantic exoticism, strongly tinged with sensuality. And, to begin with, the veil hides a beauty. A revealing reflection-among others of this state of mind was communicated to us by a European visiting Algeria who, in the exercise of his profession (he was a lawyer), had had the opportunity of seeing a few Algerian women without the veil. These men, he said, speaking of the Algerians, are guilty of concealing so many strange beauties. It was his conclusion that a people with a cache of such prizes, of such perfections of nature, owes it to itself to show them, to exhibit them. If worst came to worst, he added, it ought to be possible to force them to do so.

A strand of hair, a bit of forehead, a segment of an "overwhelmingly beautiful" face glimpsed in a streetcar or on a train, may suffice to keep alive and strengthen the European's persistence in his irrational conviction that the Algerian woman is the queen of all women.

But there is also in the European the crystallization of an aggressiveness, the strain of a kind of violence before the Algerian woman. Unveiling this woman is revealing her beauty; it is baring her secret, breaking her resistance, making her available for adventure. Hiding the face is also disguising a secret; itis also creating a world of mystery, of the hidden. In a confused way, the European experiences his relation with the Algerian woman at a highly complex level. There is in it the will to bring this woman within his reach, to make her a possible object of possession. This woman who sees without being seen frustrates the colonizer. There is no reciprocity. She does not yield herself, does not give herself, does not offer herself.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

New Atheism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

I fucking loathe these dipshits

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago

Oh god my daily reminder of why I loathe western people opinions.

[-] svcg 14 points 1 month ago

I mean, you're on the Europe community, but I'll bite. What is it in particular that seems to be crushing your cashews?

[-] orioler25@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why are you acting like you can't understand what Islamaphobia and racism is and why Euros are especially obnoxious about their subscription to Islamaphobia and racism?

I normally avoid this community now (Euros don't like it when you act like colonialism happens still), but you seem to recognize colonialism in Britain, so, it's not like you can't understand it. Did you mean you literally just wanted some examples of what we, of course, anticipate to be what they are referencing?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] janewaydidnothingwrong@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Okay i'm both dumb and uninformed but I dont have enough context to be confident I understand the bottom part. Somewhere they outlawed swimwear that muslim women would wear to a pool?

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I shouldn't have to explain to my son that other cultures exist, think of the children! /s

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
324 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

6677 readers
86 users here now

Europe

Rules:

  1. All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
  2. Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
  3. No personal attacks
  4. Posts in English, translations allowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS