Well if you do want an idea probably the best place to start is examining why you think the name is somehow more important than the physical form and intent of the garb.
Foreign people use foreign words, shocking. But going "Haha, no we didn't drink l'eau, we drank water" is an embarrassing way to argue back. Tighten up that rhetoric if you don't want to make their evangelists look better instead of worse like you should.
Even if you want to compare the intent, its completely different, the same way a nun habit is already different. Youre not being intelligent by going oh yeah theyre both head coverings or religious headcoverings. Everyone knows that. Youre just coming off as pretentiously
You say that they're completely different, but in what ways? They're both female head coverings worn because showing your hair was considered immodest for religious reasons.
Why not point out those differences instead of "foreign word bad!" and giving away an own goal to the invaders claiming people who oppose them are just ignorant racists with no real arguments? It doesn't matter too much when you're preaching to the choir here, but if you ever intend to actually influence public opinion in the wild, saying dumb stuff like that will only make them more sympathetic to centrist normies with naive bleeding hearts.
This is what i meant by being pretentious. Who wears habits. Who wears hijabs. What does the quran say about wearing the hijab and what does the bible say about the habit? Its not even close to similar and having someone pretend it is just makes me think theyre retarded
Even the argument that i should have counter arguments for opinions in the wild is retarded. Am i in the wild now? You yourself admit its pretty much preaching to the choir here then why are you being obtusely retarded? Just to go but achually huh durr? Whats that if not pretentious
Y'know the "preaching to the choir" phrase is basically shorthand for wasting time right? And that's the best case scenario.You're not harming the cause because everyone here is on the same page already, if it was anywhere else it'd be actively counterproductive. Laziness is habit forming, so I assume if you do it here you're going to do it elsewhere.
I actually care about eventually fixing this, so either I suggest corrections, or again the best case scenario is hoping you just never try to talk to normies like that if you're just going to half ass it with lazy gotchas. It's not pretentious to have an ideal and to stick to it instead of folding the first time someone bitches about you caring too much like an insecure teenager, it's just having principles.
To answer your rhetorical that you apparently thought were self evident but really aren't: Who wore the wimple? Basically every marriageable age woman in 12th century Britain, not just nuns. What did the bible say? Most couldn't even fucking read it, they were told about it at church and the priests then said the same thing the muzzies do now about temptation and modesty. The similarities are there, not just superficially but several centuries removed, and the more effective response is pointing what 12th century Britons thought of Muslims if they're going to say the British back then were wiser, not semantics about who's name for a headscarf is better.
Well if you do want an idea probably the best place to start is examining why you think the name is somehow more important than the physical form and intent of the garb.
Foreign people use foreign words, shocking. But going "Haha, no we didn't drink l'eau, we drank water" is an embarrassing way to argue back. Tighten up that rhetoric if you don't want to make their evangelists look better instead of worse like you should.
Even if you want to compare the intent, its completely different, the same way a nun habit is already different. Youre not being intelligent by going oh yeah theyre both head coverings or religious headcoverings. Everyone knows that. Youre just coming off as pretentiously
You say that they're completely different, but in what ways? They're both female head coverings worn because showing your hair was considered immodest for religious reasons.
Why not point out those differences instead of "foreign word bad!" and giving away an own goal to the invaders claiming people who oppose them are just ignorant racists with no real arguments? It doesn't matter too much when you're preaching to the choir here, but if you ever intend to actually influence public opinion in the wild, saying dumb stuff like that will only make them more sympathetic to centrist normies with naive bleeding hearts.
This is what i meant by being pretentious. Who wears habits. Who wears hijabs. What does the quran say about wearing the hijab and what does the bible say about the habit? Its not even close to similar and having someone pretend it is just makes me think theyre retarded
Even the argument that i should have counter arguments for opinions in the wild is retarded. Am i in the wild now? You yourself admit its pretty much preaching to the choir here then why are you being obtusely retarded? Just to go but achually huh durr? Whats that if not pretentious
Y'know the "preaching to the choir" phrase is basically shorthand for wasting time right? And that's the best case scenario.You're not harming the cause because everyone here is on the same page already, if it was anywhere else it'd be actively counterproductive. Laziness is habit forming, so I assume if you do it here you're going to do it elsewhere.
I actually care about eventually fixing this, so either I suggest corrections, or again the best case scenario is hoping you just never try to talk to normies like that if you're just going to half ass it with lazy gotchas. It's not pretentious to have an ideal and to stick to it instead of folding the first time someone bitches about you caring too much like an insecure teenager, it's just having principles.
To answer your rhetorical that you apparently thought were self evident but really aren't: Who wore the wimple? Basically every marriageable age woman in 12th century Britain, not just nuns. What did the bible say? Most couldn't even fucking read it, they were told about it at church and the priests then said the same thing the muzzies do now about temptation and modesty. The similarities are there, not just superficially but several centuries removed, and the more effective response is pointing what 12th century Britons thought of Muslims if they're going to say the British back then were wiser, not semantics about who's name for a headscarf is better.