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).

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, 20187 yr by Fluffle

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, 20187 yr by Lexx

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.

 

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.

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, 20187 yr by Fluffle

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?

Halloween is clearly part of the pagan agenda. Ban it!

 

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.

That's a better headline than the Trump Meets Rump one I saw on another paper.

 

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"

It's a US and Japan thing as far as I'm aware. Probably Canada.

 

Course Mexico has Dia De Los Muertos.

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.

Halloween is clearly part of the pagan capitalist agenda. Ban it!

 

Fix'd.

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, 20187 yr by majestic

“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.

The point doesn't work because the analogy doesn't. It undermines your argument.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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, 20187 yr by ktchong

An AI designed by Google, though, so Google likely made it so.

Well that happens when AI learns from todays media I suppose