- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A draft law sparks debate with locals calling it excessive and questioning how it would be enforced.
You must log in or register to comment.
I can’t wait to see how that law will be interpreted! I guess they ban Winnie the Pooh T-shirts.
Protesters will have to move down the ladder even further by breathing in a seditious manner, before they ban that too.
Fuck the CCP
Using Winnie the poo’s dick
China is the Steven Segal of countries, a giant fat pussy.
Nations don’t have feelings!
Well, I better not go there with a West Taiwan shirt anytime soon.
Disappearing like I’m part of a private magic show run by Jeffrey Dahmer most certainly isn’t on my bucket list.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A draft law banning speech and dressing “detrimental to the spirit of Chinese people” has sparked debate in China.
The proposed legal changes also forbid “insulting, slandering or otherwise infringing upon the names of local heroes and martyrs” as well as vandalism of their memorial statues.
Would its presence in China also count as hurting national feelings," one user posted on Chinese Twitter-like platform Weibo.
She cited one case that drew headlines in China last year where a kimono-clad woman was detained in the city of Suzhou and accused of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” because she had worn the Japanese garment.
In March this year, police detained a woman donning a replica of a Japanese military uniform at a night market.
And earlier last month, people who wore rainbow print clothing were denied entry to a concert by Taiwanese singer Chang Hui-mei in Beijing.
The original article contains 520 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I wonder if they know how lame this sounds translated to English.
So… Red T-shirt with yellow pants?
Maybe
Chinathe CCP should stop being a pussy.*CCP
That’s fair.
Lol. Source: I made it the fuck up
It’s real. The party’s own newspaper is reporting on the objections to it during this “soliciting feedback” phase of legislating.
Edit: Actually, it’s more of an affiliate of the party’s official newspaper.
It’s not affiliated and they also don’t list a source.
Global Times is published by People’s Daily though?
🤔 so I previously just clicked on the about page and there was no mention of this. I see that Wikipedia backs up your claim, but they also don’t seem to provide a source. I’m inclined to believe it anyway so thank you for informing me on this. “Journalism” has really become a complete dumpster fire.
They’ve gone retarded…again.
If you could use another word, like “regressive”, that would be a lot better.
Question, do we in the Neurodivergent community get to reclaim words like “retard” the same way other communities do with their derogatory slurs? Or are we once again “different” and shouldn’t be allowed to reclaim what is ours?
As an autistic person, I’ll say that I personally don’t have a problem with the word retard and jokingly call my self retarded.
And that’s fine, I don’t mind people using the term about themselves really, but as someone with a very visible disability, I strongly oppose the use of it as a pejorative slur, because it’s most regularly used by people who want me to be castrated (or worse) so that I don’t reproduce and pass my “weak genes” to future generations. Perspective and all that.
Self-identification is valid, feel free. But using a term as an insult against others is not.
So when a black person says to me, a white person, “n-word, you crazy” that’s okay because they have agency over their word. But if I were to say to an associate “stop being a retard” that’s not okay? Do we not get the same free agency over our vocabulary?
First of all, not only am I neurodiverse, I am also physical disabled, so if you think that you have some special power over this argument because of your identity or life experience, you’re totally wrong. You’re not in charge of tone-policing people who are opposing ableism.
The important thing here isn’t who has agency over which words, but whether or not your use of those words is harmful. No white person has ever really been victimised by the n-word, and therefore, they can’t really be hurt by it. Additionally, your example isn’t even what we’d think of as an insult. “You’re crazy” isn’t really a scathing remark unless it’s said in a certain way, and it’s way more often said in a playful or friendly context, like “wow, you’re working so hard, you’re crazy!”
If we cut deeper into what you’re saying (that identity is all that matters and that the n-word is fine to say if you have dark skin) then do you believe it would be acceptable for someone to say to someone else “You’re a horrible, disgusting n-word, go to hell”, for example? Would it matter what colour of skin either person had in that exchange?
Using the r-slur as an insult is harmful because it dehumanises people with disabilities. That’s the important thing, it’s nothing to do with semantics.
That’s a lot of words to say “I get to make vocabulary decisions for others. I am right and everyone else is wrong!” Seriously, quit trying to police the words others use. You do not speak for us. You are not an elected representative of the ND community. So shut up. Quit trying to white knight us just cause your feefees got hurt. The moral high ground you think you’re on is nothing more than the pile of self-important bullshit you scream orders form the top of. Stop trying to speak for those of us who would really not give a shit either way. People like you are the reason folks treat people like us with kid gloves. You’re the reason they think we are wussy little crybabies that will meltdown if someone says the wrong words. You aren’t helping anyone.
You started this by making your “gotcha” argument, all I did was explain why your argument doesn’t hold water. Instead of considering that you might have been wrong, instead you lash out in anger because your ego is in danger - and you accuse me of making people think that “we” are “crybabies” who will go into “meltdown”?
Take a deep breath, it’s okay to be wrong about things, I don’t think any less of you for that, and it’s a pretty natural response to become upset by it, made worse by rejection sensitivity, but it’s a really bad habit to fall into - try your best to stay level headed, and that way you can learn things instead of sticking your head in the sand.
But I want to make this very clear: I don’t speak for anyone but myself, and that’s enough - I don’t need your consent or your permission to try and make this world a better place for everyone and I don’t really care if you don’t approve or agree. I don’t care if people think I’m a wussy little sensitive baby, because the world I’m fighting for is an inclusive one, where people can be vulnerable without being worried about whether their masculinity will be called into question. And honestly, I think that’s a far greater strength than pretending it’s fine for people to use an ableist slur because I want to be the cool disabled kid. If you wanna do that, that’s your prerogative, but it’s some weak-ass uncle tom shit.
Well regarded.
Full Reeguard
Redarted
Retrograde
Center for Mental Retrograde sounds pretty awesome, ngl
What is the difference between this and what the french do?
The french have banned all religious iconography from educational institutions. Simple separation of church and state. This is different, and it’s kind of obvious.
Isn’t it kind of strange that French schools didn’t have a problem with religious iconography until recently?
It was introduced in 2004, so you may be right. This may be a case of “brown people bad”.
I’m from France so I can step in here. He’s actually talking about the recent ban on the abaya, a long dress that’s trending in the middle east and that some women recently started wearing here. Nothing to do with religions.
Also, the ban concerns school students, not government employees such as teachers. So even if the dress was religious, the ban wouldn’t be because of “laïcité” (separation of church and state).
Actually, it would be a breach of the principle of “laïcité”, because the state shouldn’t be able to decide how the citizens can practice their religion. You can’t have a separation of church and state, and at the same time a state that mandates which religions are good and which aren’t.
One is enforced countrywide under a vague law open for interpretation.
Other is for school children on school premises, clearly stating the articles of clothing not allowed.
There isn’t, both are plain old systemic oppression (generally mostly misogyny and/or queerphobia) disguised as “concern for the population”, there to control and further marginalise.
(though, of course, fans of both China and France and/or haters of women, queers, and/or Muslims, would die on this hill trying to convince themselves otherwise)
