A draft law sparks debate with locals calling it excessive and questioning how it would be enforced.

A draft law sparks debate with locals calling it excessive and questioning how it would be enforced.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      13·
      1 year ago

      Protesters will have to move down the ladder even further by breathing in a seditious manner, before they ban that too.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
    276·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    136·
    1 year ago

    I love how suxbears regard China as this perfect incredibly strong world power and china’s all like “your shirt makes me cry and piss myself, if you wear that again I’ll have to gulag you and give you the wall.”

    Wow such a strong government 😆

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yep, every single one. I don’t believe in hyperbole or sarcasm.

        Also, Donald Trump is a communist.

        Nice account, so shiny and fresh.

          • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            2·
            1 year ago

            🤔 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.

        • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            3·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              38·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  16·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

    • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      135·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        65·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t it kind of strange that French schools didn’t have a problem with religious iconography until recently?

      • Pili@lemmy.ml
        16·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • nestEggParrot@lemmy.sdf.org
      62·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      921·
      1 year ago

      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)