• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,988
Texas
Again, refusing to shake someone's hand is not sexist.

Again, simple question. What is difficulties specifically mean in this case?

Im ok with choosing to greet someone based on your preferred method of greeting.
Again, choosing how you greet someone based on their sex is sexist.

Again, why are you so hung up on what difficulties means? If they only had difficulties when answering questions from people of the opposite sex, no matter how those difficulties manifest, it's a clear sign of sexism.

So you're ok with interacting with people of the opposite sex entirely differently to how you greet people of the same sex. You're ok with sexism. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

Occam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,510
Again, refusing to shake someone's hand is not sexist.

Again, simple question. What is difficulties specifically mean in this case?

Im ok with choosing to greet someone based on your preferred method of greeting.
That does not answer my question and is not why they were denied citizenship.

And if your preferred method of greeting excludes people based on sex, then that is sexist.
 

inner-G

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,473
PNW
You can't excuse sexism just because of your religion.

Or, if you do, you can expect stuff like this to happen. Womp womp
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
I applaud the couple for not comprimising in this regard. It's sad to see europe still being so violently racist to people whose only crime is having different customs.

Ignoring the fact that the Swiss government has granted full citizenship to tens of thousands of Muslims beforehand, I don't see how it's "violently racist" to believe that, if you can't compromise in regards to your sexist beliefs, you shouldn't have the privilege of voting and claiming welfare in a country whose own customs explicitly go against those sexist beliefs.
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
The reason why the Swedish labor court ruled the way it did was because the woman refused to shake anyone's hand. And the case was only about a job interview.
The couple in question refused only opposite sex handshakes, not all handshakes, which is of course sexist, because it goes against gender equality.
They also were uncomfortable when asked questions by members of the opposite sex. They were not uncomfortable when talking to members of the same sex.

This is as clear a case of sexism as you can find. No court has ruled in favor of this kind sexism.
Supporting this kind of sexism makes you a sexist.
Where is this stated?

That does not answer my question and is not why they were denied citizenship.
Thats the only detailed reason that was given.

And if your preferred method of greeting excludes people based on sex, then that is sexist.

Then humans are inherently sexist. I don't kiss or hug men. Plenty of men don't. The same is true vice versa.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
Again, refusing to shake someone's hand is not sexist.

Again, simple question. What is difficulties specifically mean in this case?

You're literally making the same arguments over and over again expecting things to change. They won't, because 1) they refused to shake the hands with people based entirely on their gender and 2) the specifics don't matter because the fact that they struggled in the first place is the red flag.

Im ok with choosing to greet someone based on your preferred method of greeting.

Good job with this blatant defence of racism, homophobia and sexism. You're not even hiding it anymore.
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
You're literally making the same arguments over and over again expecting things to change. They won't, because 1) they refused to shake the hands with people based entirely on their gender and 2) the specifics don't matter because the fact that they struggled in the first place is the red flag.



Good job with this blatant defence of racism, homophobia and sexism. You're not even hiding it anymore.
Im making the same argument because you all fail to address the same argument. Thank you for admitting that specifics don't matter to you.

Good job with this blatant defence of racism, homophobia and sexism. You're not even hiding it anymore.
Lol ok bud.
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
Do you really think every single newspaper misreported their story? Why are you so certain it's not true or accurate?
I never said the story was misreported. Media prints the story they are given from the officials. I am surprised that the media didn't attempt to contact the family for comment but as Plum said, there side probably doesn't matter.
 

Trojita

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,721
"Modesty"

Why is modesty extended as an excuse to to prevent someone from interacting with the opposite sex?
 
Apr 1, 2018
410
Looking someone in the eye and extending the same courtesy to them as people of your own sex is violating their modesty?

Patriarchal, outdated horseshit that is incompatible with modern, western society. Anyone who believes the above does not deserve citizenship in a society that values equality.
So it's about values, Tell me more about these equal values when they're deporting people in war-torn hellholes because they're new to shaking hands. Because those values, those EUROPEAN values are the envy of the world.
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,988
Texas
So it's about values, Tell me more about these equal values when they're deporting people in war-torn hellholes because they're new to shaking hands. Because those values, those EUROPEAN values are the envy of the world.
Why are we talking about deportation when this thread is about acquiring citizenship? AFAIK these folks will get to keep living where they are, they just won't get to participate in steering the future of the country.

I don't think people should get deported for not assimilating and adopting the cultural norms of the place they live in.

I also don't think they should get citizenship if they refuse to drop the problematic aspects of their culture that directly conflict with the expectations of the society they live in.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
Im making the same argument because you all fail to address the same argument. Thank you for admitting that specifics don't matter to you.

OK, what specifics could there be that would somehow make the phrase "struggled with answering questions from the opposite sex" mean nothing? You're trying to twist my words into some racist tirade when, in actuality, it's you who has consistently repeated this conspiracy-laden rhetoric with no actual theories on why the Swiss authorities would suddenly choose to both lie and become explicitly racist with this couple. I don't care for "FAKE NEWS" arguments no matter who's making them, especially when said someone is clearly making them because the accepted narrative goes against their biases. You're making it very hard to believe that even if the Swiss government were to release a full video recording of the interview you'd make any change to the conclusion you've clearly arrived at already.


Here's a simple yes or no question:

If I decided not to interact with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?

So it's about values, Tell me more about these equal values when they're deporting people in war-torn hellholes because they're new to shaking hands. Because those values, those EUROPEAN values are the envy of the world.

They're not being deported.
 

Ursus007

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
202
Lausanne, Swizterland
So it's about values, Tell me more about these equal values when they're deporting people in war-torn hellholes because they're new to shaking hands. Because those values, those EUROPEAN values are the envy of the world.

It's their prerogative to deny citizenship. In this case they are absolutely right. If you can't shake hands with opposite hands Switzerland doesn't have to accommodate your right to be sexist. Good riddance.

Nobody is deporting these people to war torn hellholes, they can still live with a permit if they so desire.
 

MrMephistoX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,754
Islam is not the problem I have Iranian and Turkish friends that are just the nicest people ever but fundamentalist religious beliefs are intolerant regardless of it being Bhuddist, Hindu, Christian or Islam. Story for another day but Iranians are some of the warmest and generous people I've ever met yet the US is best friends with a mysoginistic regime like the Saudis...fuck that.

Speaking of US allies with backward ideas toward women...I have a friend who is currently renting out his home through air b and b to a couple from Abu Dhabi. He owns the place and they won't even let him in the house without a man present to do requested repairs something g as simple as flipping the breaker because they blew a fuse. The women can't leave the house and are in full Nikjab ( I think that's the full body version with only eye slits) 24/7. They refused to sign the lease without him handing over all the keys and garage remote to the house too. That said for the $15k a month they're paying I'd put up with a lot too. He secretly has copies but still...

It's just freaking weird to be on vacation in SoCal and not even let the owner of the home in and it seems borderline disrespectful. Granted they pay well it's just super odd to export that level of fundamentalism here. Not that fundamentalist Christians would be any better but still it's just odd and is a level of mysoginy that's beyond the pale to me.
 
Last edited:

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
It's just freaking weird to be on vacation in SoCal and not even let the owner of the home in and it seems borderline disrespectful. Granted they pay well it's just super odd to export that level of fundamentalism here. Not that fundamentalist Christians would be any better but still it's just odd and is a level of mysoginy that's beyond the pale to me.

You should watch a film called "Old Fashioned," (though the Cinema Snob review will do just as well). It's a Christian film (from the same folks who brought you God's Not Dead) that exemplifies the fundamentalist belief that women are nothing but sexual temptations. There's literally a scene in it where the protagonist's female """"love"""" interest can't go in to do repairs on the apartment she legally owns because the man is too fundamentalist to be alone in the same room as a woman. It would be hilarious if both the film itself and the knowledge that many Christians genuinely believe in the same things weren't so creepy.
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
OK, what specifics could there be that would somehow make the phrase "struggled with answering questions from the opposite sex" mean nothing? You're trying to twist my words into some racist tirade when, in actuality, it's you who has consistently repeated this conspiracy-laden rhetoric with no actual theories on why the Swiss authorities would suddenly choose to both lie and become explicitly racist with this couple. I don't care for "FAKE NEWS" arguments no matter who's making them, especially when said someone is clearly making them because the accepted narrative goes against their biases. You're making it very hard to believe that even if the Swiss government were to release a full video recording of the interview you'd make any change to the conclusion you've clearly arrived at already.


What does struggle mean? Did they refuse? Were they frustrated or did they become angry? Were they nervous? Did they answer a question incorrectly? Literally any detail would be far more illuminating. But they choose to talk about handshakes.


Here's a simple yes or no question:

If I decided not to interact with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?


Here's a nuanced answer.

You can "interact" with whomever you choose to. Or if its public, you will have no choice alot of times and that's fine.

What you can't do is deny a Muslim of a right or service because of their non harmful, non impactful customs or beliefs.
 

MrMephistoX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,754
You should watch a film called "Old Fashioned," (though the Cinema Snob review will do just as well). It's a Christian film (from the same folks who brought you God's Not Dead) that exemplifies the fundamentalist belief that women are nothing but sexual temptations. There's literally a scene in it where the protagonist's female """"love"""" interest can't go in to do repairs on the apartment she legally owns because the man is too fundamentalist to be alone in the same room as a woman. It would be hilarious if both the film itself and the knowledge that many Christians genuinely believe in the same things weren't so creepy.

Totally agree if that wasn't clear I think religious based misogyny is abhorrent regardless of if you believe in a magical white zombie (who by all logic would have been a brown Israeli farmer) or an elephant man. In fact one could argue all religions are mysoginistic at their core: Eve gets the blame for original sin not Adam. Most of the Ten Commandments are based on curbing sexual promiscuity including the institute of marriage yet men are forgiven for sleeping with hookers and women get stoned to death for committing adultry even in cases of rape or incest or of course for being a sex worker. Fundamentalism is sick even by historical standards and most religions ignore those rules and rightfully so because of the rule of law.
 
Last edited:

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
What does struggle mean? Did they refuse? Were they frustrated or did they become angry? Were they nervous? Did they answer a question incorrectly? Literally any detail would be far more illuminating. But they choose to talk about handshakes.

Why would they be "far more illuminating"? You clearly think that at least one of those details will be a magical "gotcha" to those who think the couple were sexist so I'd like to hear your explanation. Which one of these explanations would:
1) Show that the couple received an unfair interview and were unjustly denied citizenship
2) Show that the couple were not in any way sexist
3) Show that the Swiss government were inexplicably racist towards the couple
?

Here's a nuanced answer.

You can "interact" with whomever you choose to. Or if its public, you will have no choice alot of times and that's fine.

What you can't do is deny a Muslim of a right or service because of their non harmful, non impactful customs or beliefs.

Stop deflecting and answer the question:

If I decided not to interact with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
Why would they be "far more illuminating"? You clearly think that at least one of those details will be a magical "gotcha" to those who think the couple were sexist so I'd like to hear your explanation. Which one of these explanations would:
1) Show that the couple received an unfair interview and were unjustly denied citizenship
2) Show that the couple were not in any way sexist
3) Show that the Swiss government were inexplicably racist towards the couple
?



Stop deflecting and answer the question:

If I decided not to interact with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
Because they would provide actual fact and context and not force the use of imagination?

No one is deflecting anything. You don't have to interact with anybody you don't want to. You also cannot deny people a service or good or right that you have control of for superficial reasons like religon. Full stop.

Do you believe everyone has the right to greet someone however they chose to?
No but modern society has many acceptable ways that can be used interchangeably and shouldn't cause offense.
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,988
Texas
You also cannot deny people a service or good or right that you have control of for superficial reasons like religon. Full stop.
So you can't deny people's right to be treated equally regardless of their sex because of religion? Good to know! That's why these people were not granted citizenship.

Which, incidentally, is not a right.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
Because they would provide actual fact and context and not force the use of imagination?

And we got the actual facts and context. The context is that of a citizenship interview. The facts are that, during that citizenship interview, the couple struggled with answering questions from the opposite sex. If you believe that additional details will somehow change both of those things then explain why because right now your rhetoric is the textbook definition of empty conspiratorial "FAKE NEWS" thinking.

No one is deflecting anything. You don't have to interact with anybody you don't want to. You also cannot deny people a service or good or right that you have control of for superficial reasons like religon. Full stop.

Stop deflecting and answer the question:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
So you can't deny people's right to be treated equally regardless of their sex because of religion? Good to know! That's why these people were not granted citizenship.

Which, incidentally, is not a right.

You can't force a person to greet another person in a physical manner. A person has a right to bodily integrity among other things.

Sweden's discrimination ombudsman's office, which represented 24-year-old Ms Alhajeh, said the judgement had taken into account "the employer's interests, the individual's right to bodily integrity, and the importance of the state to maintain protection for religious freedom".


Her refusal to shake hands on religious grounds was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, it said, and the company's policy in demanding a specific greeting was detrimental to Muslims.

And we got the actual facts and context. The context is that of a citizenship interview. The facts are that, during that citizenship interview, the couple struggled with answering questions from the opposite sex. If you believe that additional details will somehow change both of those things then explain why because right now your rhetoric is the textbook definition of empty conspiratorial "FAKE NEWS" thinking.



Stop deflecting and answer the question:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
We don't have the facts. I've answered your question. Have a good one.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
You can't force a person to greet another person in a physical manner. A person has a right to bodily integrity among other things.

Nor can you force a country to compromise its values for the sake of someone else's sexist beliefs.

Also nobody forced the couple to do anything, they chose to not shake someone's hands based purely on their sex and the Swiss chose to use that as one of multiple reasons to fail their interview.

We don't have the facts. I've answered your question. Have a good one.

You never answered the question, you simply deflected it onto another issue entirely. I'll ask you again:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?

All it requires is "Yes" or "No." It's perhaps the most simple question you've been asked this thread yet you seem to be struggling very hard to answer it.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
So it's about values, Tell me more about these equal values when they're deporting people in war-torn hellholes because they're new to shaking hands. Because those values, those EUROPEAN values are the envy of the world.

Did you even read the OP before deciding to post? Do you know what citizenship is?

Please try and do better at reading before saying things that aren't even happening. It might sound dramatic but it's as bad as some of the deflection going on in here.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
No, I unpacked a loaded question with a nuanced answer.

No, you didn't, you ignored the question and focused on the issue of whether someone has a right to refuse a handshake instead of whether the motivations behind it are harmful. What you don't seem to understand is that everybody agrees that the couple had a right to refuse the handshake so simply explaining it to us again and again does nothing but deflect from an actual answer to the question.

I'll ask it again:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
No, you didn't, you ignored the question and focused on the issue of whether someone has a right to refuse a handshake instead of whether the motivations behind it are harmful.

I'll ask it again:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
I am indifferent. No one has obligation to touch or be touched by anybody. That's the last time I will answer this.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
I am indifferent. No one has obligation to touch or be touched by anybody.

Again, that's not an actual answer to the question: you either think it's bad or you don't. For the thousandth time the question is not about whether one has the right to decide not to interact physically with someone based purely on their race/sex/sexual orientation, it's a simple yes or no question asking you whether you believe the motivations behind it to be a bad thing or not.

I'll ask it again:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
Again, that's not an actual answer to the question: you either think it's bad or you don't. For the thousandth time the question is not about whether one has the right to decide not to interact physically with someone based purely on their race/sex/sexual orientation, it's a simple yes or no question asking you whether you believe the motivations behind it to be a bad thing or not.

I'll ask it again:

If I decided not to interact physically with any Muslim based purely on their religious beliefs would that be a bad thing?


You can be indifferent. Maybe expand your vocabulary.

Indifferent said:
a : being neither good nor bad : mediocre
  • does indifferent work
b : being neither right nor wrong
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
You can be indifferent. Maybe expand your vocabulary.

So you don't think it's a bad thing, then? You don't have to think something is A-OK to be in support of it, and what you've said here is that you're in support of racist motivations behind actions.

Since you clearly aren't willing to answer that question I'll ask another question, one that has literally no other answers except for "yes" or "no.":

If someone refused to interact with an entire group of people based purely on their race/sex/sexual orientation would they be racist/sexist/homophobic or not?
 

rambis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,790
So you don't think it's a bad thing, then? You don't have to think something is A-OK to be in support of it, and what you've said here is that you're in support of racist motivations behind actions.

Since you clearly aren't willing to answer that question I'll ask another question, one that has literally no other answers except for "yes" or "no.":

If someone refused to interact with an entire group of people based purely on their race/sex/sexual orientation would they be racist/sexist/homophobic or not?
I've answered my fill of questions from you.

My position is thus. No one is obligated to touch someone or be touched. Modern society has many greetings, they can be used interchangeably. You can't force someone to greet you in a particular way.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,279
I've answered my fill of questions from you.

My position is thus. No one is obligated to touch someone or be touched. Modern society has many greetings, they can be used interchangeably. You can't force someone to greet you in a particular way.

So, without any further evidence, I am going to conclude that you support or at least accept racism, sexism and homophobia having an affect on how we treat other human beings. Good day.