Lexx Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 Always expected such a law to go down that road, so it doesn't surprise me at all. Really, they punch it through with the argument of burkas, because people are scared of them, but really it's just to get everyone they want who's wearing a mask (which usually happens at demonstrations). "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Fluffle Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) Always expected such a law to go down that road, so it doesn't surprise me at all. Really, they punch it through with the argument of burkas, because people are scared of them, but really it's just to get everyone they want who's wearing a mask (which usually happens at demonstrations). Nope. They don't punch it through with the arguments of burkas. They can't. They are not allowed to. That would be discriminatory. And in order to not discriminate they must forbid any kind of anything that covers the face. Doing that they can't be accused of being discriminatory. Because as you can see, even people wearing shark costumes or scarves in their face are forbidden from doing so. They don't care for shark costumes or scarves, however. They ONLY care for burkas and similiar veils. It's really just to get muslim women who cover their faces. Edited May 31, 2018 by Fluffle "Loyal Servant of His Most Fluffyness, Lord Kerfluffleupogus, Devourer of the Faithful!" *wearing the Ring of Fire Resistance* (gift from JFSOCC)
Lexx Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) They always argue about burkas when such a law is being talked about. Maybe not directly when it actually matters, but otherwise they do. It's plain as day and night that "in real" it's about masks in general. Edited May 31, 2018 by Lexx "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Fluffle Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 They always argue about burkas when such a law is being talked about. Maybe not directly when it actually matters, but otherwise they do. But they can't express that in a law. Because such a law would very probably be against the Austrian constitution for the very fact that it would be discriminatory. So they had to find a law that bans burkas and such but that was not discriminatory. And their solution was to ban any kind of anything that covers the face. "Loyal Servant of His Most Fluffyness, Lord Kerfluffleupogus, Devourer of the Faithful!" *wearing the Ring of Fire Resistance* (gift from JFSOCC)
injurai Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 100% support this, hijabs are totes fine. Not sure if Denmark has antifa hooligans but I would expect society to treat that the same. Should Groucho Marx glasses be outlawed too? I feel like if you are performing in costume, you should have a permit. If you are just pulling a gag or hijinx informally, than the obfuscation of your identity is improper behavior in a public space. If you were going to a masquerade, you should put your mask on once you arrive at the private event.
Fluffle Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) It's plain as day and night that "in real" it's about masks in general. Well for me it's plain as day and night that "in real" it's about muslim women only, while they pretend that it's about any kind of masks. So I'd guess we are at the point where we agree to disagree and move on Edited May 31, 2018 by Fluffle "Loyal Servant of His Most Fluffyness, Lord Kerfluffleupogus, Devourer of the Faithful!" *wearing the Ring of Fire Resistance* (gift from JFSOCC)
Gfted1 Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 I feel like if you are performing in costume, you should have a permit. If you are just pulling a gag or hijinx informally, than the obfuscation of your identity is improper behavior in a public space. If you were going to a masquerade, you should put your mask on once you arrive at the private event. I know its not an international custom, but you you celebrate Halloween in your country? Should children be prevented from trick-or-treating? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Hurlshort Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 Halloween is clearly part of the pagan agenda. Ban it!
injurai Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 I feel like if you are performing in costume, you should have a permit. If you are just pulling a gag or hijinx informally, than the obfuscation of your identity is improper behavior in a public space. If you were going to a masquerade, you should put your mask on once you arrive at the private event. I know its not an international custom, but you you celebrate Halloween in your country? Should children be prevented from trick-or-treating? Kids sort of a get a pass on lot's of things, maybe they should, but typically parents are out chaperoning such occasions too and typically aren't in costume. So there are adults representing the kids. Usually there is a police presence watching out of hooligan's on such nights. Halloween is mostly held on collections of private property, and I guess you are stepping into the public as you walk on side-walks and the street. Typically these parts of a neighborhood are shared commons though that operate as semi-private extensions of the surrounding private property. Certainly these cases can be studies further. You certainly shouldn't go out and do your daily business with your Halloween mask on.
Hurlshort Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 That's a better headline than the Trump Meets Rump one I saw on another paper.
Gorth Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 I feel like if you are performing in costume, you should have a permit. If you are just pulling a gag or hijinx informally, than the obfuscation of your identity is improper behavior in a public space. If you were going to a masquerade, you should put your mask on once you arrive at the private event. I know its not an international custom, but you you celebrate Halloween in your country? Should children be prevented from trick-or-treating? Can't speak for all countries of course, but I'm fairly sure it's unknown in it's US form in Scandinavia (Denmark has something similar, but themed around witch burning) and neither Germany, UK, NZ or Australia knows it as anything other than "that US thing" “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
injurai Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 It's a US and Japan thing as far as I'm aware. Probably Canada. Course Mexico has Dia De Los Muertos.
smjjames Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Didn’t it originate in the U.K. with carved turnips and all that? The US form may be unique to the US, but similar types of traditions exist elsewhere.
Azdeus Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Halloween is clearly part of the pagan capitalist agenda. Ban it! Fix'd. Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken
majestic Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) Congratulations Spain, by the way. The less buttholes like Rajoy creep around in Europe the better. Now if we could only get rid of the EPP altogether... Edited June 1, 2018 by majestic No mind to think. No will to break. No voice to cry suffering.
Blarghagh Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 “And since you have a right to free speech there is no reason to not allow excercising this anonymously.” so why not in public? Not like every masked person wants to stab someone; and not like you can’t deal harm to people over the internet either.The internet is 99% privately owned. Not a public space. We reserve the right to refuse service and all that. We can let you be anonymous all we want. Recall a while ago Blizzard wanted to attach Real ID to battle.net accounts. They didn't because of backlash, but they would have been well in their rights to require it to use their services. You'd have to agree to it, obviously, but if you don't you'd get no access. Anonimity on the internet is not a right, it just happens to be the way it works on most sites. Free speech doesn't come into it. 2
Blarghagh Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 The point doesn't work because the analogy doesn't. It undermines your argument.
Amentep Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 Didn’t it originate in the U.K. with carved turnips and all that? The US form may be unique to the US, but similar types of traditions exist elsewhere. As I understand it, its more specifically from Gaelic and Welsh sources (mostly from the Gaelic Calan Gaeaf festival). Even though I do believe the law is specifically targeting Muslim women, lets for a moment pretend it isn’t. Why should I be stopped from wearing a mask in public? Anonymity is greatly beneficial in many situations... case and point: this very thread would probably be very different if we weren’t all benefiting from varying degrees of anonymity. For example of the possible application of a anti-mask law, the US state of Georgia has an anti-mask law (from 1951) to make it possible to prosecute the KKK who, until that point, had been using anonymity to commit crimes and intimidate witnesses and minorities. It is also very narrowly interpreted according to the Georgia Supreme Court to, as I recall, really only factor into situations where the mask provokes apprehension of intimidation, threats or violence despite not specifying that in the law. The law also makes exceptions for masks for work, gas masks, masks for holidays and masks for theatrical or mardi gras style celebrations. The law, as its currently interpreted, wouldn't apply to a Muslim woman in a traditional face covering unless she was trying to use anonymity to intimidate others thanks to her anonymity or to intimate violence against others thanks to her anonymity. 1 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
smjjames Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 As for that danish law, I’ve read that they, for some bizarre reason, are also banning fake beards. My first thought was ‘well, goodbye mall Santas’, unless they hire old guys with natural long beards.
Malcador Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-business/us-business/article-trump-blasts-canada-as-highly-restrictive-threatens-lumber-in/ US diplomacy at work, I guess. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Guard Dog Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-business/us-business/article-trump-blasts-canada-as-highly-restrictive-threatens-lumber-in/ US diplomacy at work, I guess. Now you'll have that song stuck in your head all day! 1 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
ktchong Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) Republicans are throwing a fit after finding out that Google returns "nazism" in the search results for "Republican Party" as a definition of the party. And they are blaming the "liberal bias" of people who work in Google. The problem with that rationale is... no actual human/person in Google added the word "nazism" to the search results of the Republican Party as a definition. It was the Google's artificial intelligence - i.e., machine learning - that made the decision to auto-generate nazism as a result for any search for on Republican after the A.I. has self-learned the search habits and patterns of millions or even billions of people over time. So, if the A.I. determined that if the definition fits, then the A.I. just added made the decision based on the facts it has "learned". P.S. Since then, Google has manually removed nazism as a definition for the Republican Party. Manually as in some human/person in Google overrode the A.I. decision and took out nazism from all relevant search results. Edited June 1, 2018 by ktchong
Volourn Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 An AI designed by Google, though, so Google likely made it so. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Chilloutman Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Well that happens when AI learns from todays media I suppose I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"
Recommended Posts