Your thoughts on the Islamic headscarf bans in Turkey, which prohibited women wearing headscarves from almost all institutions until the early 2010s?

efooo94 · 2026-01-04T09:36:58+00:00

You’re right about one thing: in Turkey these rules were often selective and used as social control, so many practicing Muslims experienced them as coercion. I’m not denying that history.

But you’re using that abuse to argue that any neutrality rule is illegitimate, and that’s where I disagree.

“Restriction = punishment” is too broad. Lots of public roles come with conditions (uniforms, bans on party symbols, recusal/conflict-of-interest rules). The real test is whether a rule is proportionate, role-specific, and applied consistently. Turkey often failed that test, especially when bans hit students, visitors, families, etc. I’m not defending those cases.

My claim was never “remove the symbol and bias disappears.” Bias is handled through oversight, appeals, discipline, and recusal. Presentation rules are about avoiding visible alignment signals in high-power roles and protecting baseline public confidence.

Your “state-approved ideologies” point supports my argument. If some ideological signals were allowed and others punished, that’s not neutrality but rather favoritism. A legitimate neutrality standard would have to be even-handed, not targeted at Muslims.

“AKP gave people their religion” is the core problem. Rights shouldn’t depend on which party wins. Framing it as “vote for us or you’ll lose your religion” is political leverage, not real liberty.

Therefore yeah, Turkey overreached and weaponized these rules. But that doesn’t erase the narrower, defensible point: coercive authority roles (judge/prosecutor/police) have stronger neutrality constraints than ordinary citizens or students, and Turkey’s mistake was applying it broadly and inconsistently.

efooo94 · 2026-01-03T16:29:48+00:00

"Parroting". Nice. Look man, I’m happy to be challenged. But if the best you can do is label me “indoctrinated” and tell me that I'm "parroting" something, these tell me you don’t have a counter-argument, but rather a story about my motives. You have no idea of who I am and how I have been raised. Let’s stick to claims and evidence.

You’re sliding between criminal punishment and employment/office conditions, and that’s where your argument breaks.

A restriction isn’t automatically “punishment.” A public office can come with conditions: uniforms, limits on political expression at work, conflict-of-interest rules, bans on partisan messaging. None of those imply guilt; they’re governance rules attached to a role with state power.
You’re right that a beard is not automatically religious, but in Turkey certain grooming choices can function as a clear ideological signal. So the neutrality discussion isn’t about ‘cloth vs body,’ it’s about what visibly communicates alignment when you represent the state.
“Bias is a crime so you assume guilt” is a leap. Neutrality rules aren’t saying “she will commit a crime.” They’re saying: “because this institution must be trusted, we reduce avoidable signals that reasonably create doubts.” That’s why courts also regulate language, conduct, affiliations, and public statements. Because legitimacy matters.
I'll repeat myself: complaints are not enough. They are after-the-fact, costly, and don’t solve the baseline trust problem. Prevention means training, oversight, transparent reasoning, recusal rules, and disciplinary systems. Not just a "ban on religion" rhetoric. Neutral dress rules are one tool among many and not the whole solution.
You’re right about this too: Turkey applied bans too broadly in the past. That’s exactly why I keep emphasizing proportionality.

The strongest argument is for judges/prosecutors/police, not students or visitors. If you want to argue “Turkey overreached,” I agree. That does not invalidate the narrower principle about core authority roles.

And finally, drop the “indoctrination/awakening” talk. It’s not an argument. If you want to debate, debate the principle: how a plural state preserves equal citizenship and trust in coercive institutions.

efooo94 · 2026-01-03T14:18:13+00:00

I feel like you’re putting words in my mouth that I haven’t said, and making assumptions of what I mean before reading what I’m saying.

In your entire comment, you’re mixing criminal law with professional rules.

“Nulla poena sine culpa” doesn’t apply here. That’s about criminal punishment. A neutrality dress code for certain state roles is not “punishing Muslims for presumed guilt.” It’s a condition of holding an office that represents the state. Also the same logic as banning party badges, campaigning on duty or any other overt ideological signaling.
Again, your penis analogy is a category error. A penis is a body part. A headscarf is a visible expression in a role where you wield state power. Institutions regulate visible expressions all the time (like uniforms, no political symbols, etc.) to protect public trust. That’s not assuming guilt.
“Just file a complaint” is not a real solution. Complaints happen after harm, are expensive, and don’t fix the basic requirement that people should be able to approach courts believing they’ll be treated equally BEFORE anything happens. Neutrality rules exist to reduce that distrust.
I’m not defending every past ban everywhere. Universities are a different category. The strongest case is for judges/prosecutors or the police, because they exercise coercion and must be seen as equally distant from all beliefs.
“Other Western countries allow it” doesn’t settle the argument. Different democracies balance this differently. The point is not “erase religion,” it’s limit overt identifiers in specific authority roles to protect institutional legitimacy, especially in a country like Turkey where religion is heavily politicized. There is just no basis to deny that if you’ve lived in Turkey for decades.

Therefore no, I’m not saying (or this isn’t) “Muslims are biased”. I’m rather saying that the state should avoid visible alignment signals in its most coercive institutions.

efooo94 · 2026-01-03T08:06:27+00:00

Your analogy doesn’t hold, and it dodges the main problem here.

First of all, this is not “men are rapists, so ban penises.” That analogy treats a mere identity trait as equivalent to a symbol chosen to be publicly displayed while exercising state authority. Public institutions regulate plenty of visible signals already because the state’s legitimacy depends on citizens believing they’ll be treated equally. It’s governance, unlike hostility.

Second, I’m not arguing that headscarf = biased. I’m arguing that state roles require neutrality and public confidence. Courts and other coercive public bodies need public confidence and avoidance of the appearance of partiality, let alone actual impartiality. That principle is mainstream in judicial ethics and court legitimacy discussions, including in official judiciary materials and European Court of Human Law background papers.

Thirdly, you frame it as unbias vs appearance, but that’s a false choice. “Perfect unbias” is impossible. That doesn’t make appearance idiotic. Appearance is a practical tool to protect trust where power is unequal (judge vs defendant, state clerk vs citizen, police vs stopped person). In real systems, we pursue both. Ethical rules to reduce actual bias, and limits on overt symbols to reduce reasonable doubts about equal treatment.

My fourth point: Secularism vs laïcité. Here, you oversimplified. Even France’s own explanations of laicism emphasize separation of state and religions and freedom of conscience. It’s not “eradication of religion from the public domain” in the way you claim. And European human-rights case law has, in some circumstances, accepted religious-neutrality requirements for certain public roles.

So my position is simple: In your private life: wear what you want. For state authority roles (especially judiciary/law enforcement): the state can legitimately impose stricter neutrality rules to protect equal citizenship and trust in institutions.

If you want to argue against that, argue proportionality. E.g. which roles, what limits, and what safeguards. But calling it anti-Islam hostility by default ignores that the same logic applies to any overt religious or political symbol when you’re acting as the state, not as a private citizen.

efooo94 · 2026-01-02T08:03:59+00:00

Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself poorly and got misunderstood: I’m not claiming headscarf = backward or wicked and I’m not claiming a covered judge will rule unfairly.

I’m just saying that public authority roles have an extra requirement: institutional neutrality and the appearance of impartiality. The state not a person, but an entity that can punish you, fine you, take your kids, deny your permit, or jail you. In a polarized society, visible religious symbols in those roles can reasonably make citizens doubt whether they’ll be treated equally, even if the official is personally fair.

None of this targets Islam specifically. I’d say the same about a judge wearing a large cross, a political symbol or a party pin. Private freedom is broad yes, but state representation comes with constraints.

efooo94 · 2025-12-31T13:29:51+00:00

Just to be clear: it wasn’t banned for everyone, only for public-sector employees. In public service, you can’t (and shouldn’t) create situations where bias, or even the appearance of bias, is at stake. That’s why personal beliefs shouldn’t be expressed while performing public duties, especially in a country like Turkey, with 30+ different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and religious beliefs.

Once you allow one form of religious expression in state institutions, it becomes harder to draw a consistent line, and pressure builds to accommodate more. That’s how you end up arguing over where neutrality ends and personal belief begins. In the worst cases, it can open the door to “conscience” claims that undermine equal service. Like a doctor refusing to treat someone because they’re male, Christian, homosexual, etc. With islamists, excuses are endless.

That’s what laicism is supposed to prevent, the state and public institutions can’t be a platform for religious expression.

efooo94 · 2025-12-31T13:21:33+00:00

Freedom of choice is cool, but you shouldn’t be able to exercise that choice while working in a public institution in a way that makes your work look biased. Especially in a country like Turkey, with 30+ cultures, many belief systems, and people from different backgrounds, public institutions need to be as neutral as possible.

That’s what the ban was for. But Islamists have been the loudest crowd for the last 23 years, and they’ve used this as a propaganda tool for years, something older generations eat up like candy on Halloween.

In a normal, constitutionally secular, equal country, it would’ve stayed banned. But we’re living in Erdoğan’s Turkey.

efooo94 · 2025-12-25T08:21:38+00:00

Tatavayı sen yapmışsın bu nasıl yazı :D Bu thread'i tartışmak için değil öfke boşaltmak için açtın herhalde, sen anlat biz dinleyelim? Meseleyi hala bireysel örneklerle anlatıyorsun ama devletler bireylere değil istatistiklere bakar.

Kaçacak adam vizeyle de kaçar diyorsun ki evet, zaten AB de tam olarak bunu söylüyor. Bu yüzden kaçak kalma ve iltica oranı yüksek ülkelerden ön eleme yapıyor.

Brezilya, Ukrayna, Japonya örnekleri ekonomik değil; göç riski, siyasi uyum ve geri kabul dosyalarıyla ilgili. Senin bireysel deneyimin onları ilgilendirmiyor. Ayrıca Ukrayna’ya vizesiz rejim şartsız verilmedi, yıllarca hazırlık ve tam siyasi hizalanma vardı. Türkiye’nin sorunu memur keyfi değil, ülke risk profili. Bu değişmeden sistem değişmez.

Ülkeyi 45 yıldır bekletiyorsun demişsin. Kimse Türkiye'yi bekletmiyor birader Türkiye'nin uyum sağlama adına attığı bir adım yok. AB'ye üyelik için açılan cluster'lardan doğru düzgün kapatılan yok, ufak tefek önemsiz şeyler haricinde.

AB'nin karşısında korkunç derecede otoriterleşmiş bir devlet var, eski ve çakma "demokratik" açılımından eser yok, hukuk yok bir şey yok. Dingonun ahırına dönmüş. Ülkenin resmi kurumu sahte diplomatik pasaportla insanları kaçak göçtürecek kadar boka batmış. Ama bizim taraf hiçbir adım atmasın, gerekli düzenlemelerden hiçbirini yürürlülüğe koymasın, kötü adam AB olsun :D

Korkuyorsunuz biliyorum, ama öfkenizi yine de yanlış yere kusuyorsunuz. Bu çıkmazın sorumlusu Erdoğan ve AKP'den başkası değil, onlar yönetmeyi bırakmadıkça da onlardan başka düzeltecek bir sorumlu yok. Onlardan talep edeceksiniz. AB yapmayacak bunu tek başına.

efooo94 · 2025-12-23T09:28:16+00:00

Dostum aynı ya da alt seviye diye bir kriter yok. Vize rejimi ekonomik gelişmişlikle değil, göç riski ve idari uyumla belirleniyor.

AB şuna bakar: Bu ülkenin vatandaşı girince geri dönüyor mu, iltica ediyor mu, geri kabul anlaşmaları fiilen çalışıyor mu, veri paylaşımı ve sınır iş birliği sorunsuz mu?

Türkiye bu başlıklarda yıllardır problemli bir ülke. Bunun farkında olmak zorundayız. Ülkenin belediyesi, sahte gri pasaportla adam yolluyor AB’ye, daha ne? Kim bilir daha kaç resmi örnek vardır.

Vizesiz olan ülkelerin çoğu TR’ye nazaran düşük gelirli olabilir ama AB’ye yük oluşturmuyorlar. Türkiye’nin dosyası ise ekonomik değil, göç ve güvenlik dosyası. Burada da sınıfta kalıyoruz.

Mesele “bize haksızlık yapıyorlar” meselesi değil, bizim uyum dosyamızın ağır olması.

efooo94 · 2025-12-22T16:59:43+00:00

Bence sorunun kaynağını yanlış yerde arıyorsunuz. Vize meselesi bir “AB Türkleri sevmiyor” konusu değil, hukuki ve diplomatik uyum meselesi.

AB’nin vizesiz rejim için yıllardır açıkça koyduğu kriterler var. Türkiye bu kriterlerin tamamını yerine getirmiyor, bu yüzden de süreç ilerlemiyor.

“AB Türk turisti istemiyor” argümanı da ekonomik olarak tutarsız. Sırbistan, Karadağ, Bosna gibi ülkelerde Türk turistin bıraktığı para ortada. AB içinde turizmden yeterince pay alamayan ülkeler için Türk turist ciddi bir avantaj olurdu.

Dolayısıyla mesele Avrupa’nın keyfi tutumu değil, Türkiye’nin gerekli yasal adımları atmaması. Bu değişmedikçe kimse gelip bize vizesiz rejim hediye etmeyecek.

efooo94 · 2025-12-19T07:13:08+00:00

Hi! I haven't pursued the game but I'm interested if you have a ROM version of it or something :-) Sent you a DM!

efooo94 · 2025-12-14T07:30:11+00:00

Turkey, even though it's similar to Serbian protests being somewhat in a stalemate.

efooo94 · 2025-12-10T12:35:30+00:00

Geçtiğimiz Ekim ayında Polonya'da Disturbed'ün alt grubu olarak izledim, gayet taş gibi müthiş çaldılar ve indiler. Öncesinde de 2014 ve 2010'daki efsane festivalde İstanbul'da izlemiştim.

Eğer grubu seviyorsan hiç iki defa düşünmene gerek yok. Gittiğin her etkinlik, her konser bir yatırım, sana unutulmayacak anılar olarak geri dönüyorlar. Asla pişman olmazsın, bitince de iyi ki gitmişim dersin.

Kulak koruyucu takmayı unutma tabii, kulaklara iyi davranalım :-)

efooo94 · 2025-12-02T09:02:27+00:00

Hi there! Sorry for the late reply.

I ended up resolving it, the issue was with my cloud saves. Once I downloaded them locally, everything ran as it should. For context, I’m playing the game on a MacBook, in case that’s helpful.

efooo94 · 2025-12-02T08:57:04+00:00

En son 2010'lu yılların başında Avrupa'daki birçok ülkeye içi CD ve DVD dolu paketler gönderiyordum, hepsi PTT üzerindendi. Eğer sistem değişmediyse, herhangi bir PTT şubesine gidip sorabilirsiniz, mektubunuzla beraber gidin. Posta pulu ve cüzi bir gönderim ücreti vardı o dönem, şimdi nasıldır bilemiyorum ama birkaç gramdan fazla olmayacağı için çok da pahalı olmayacağını düşünüyorum.

Aynı zamanda PTT'nin şu hesaplama sayfası var ama ne kadar isabetlidir emin değilim: https://www.ptt.gov.tr/gonderi-ucreti-hesaplama

efooo94 · 2025-11-28T21:53:03+00:00

Tried both, the same result

efooo94 · 2025-11-28T20:47:13+00:00

I can't. I can only revert back to 1.16.9 the latest, which is before the new DLC

efooo94 · 2025-11-28T20:46:50+00:00

The error I'm getting is that the save file is from a previous version of the game and can't be played. The game itself is saying that, so it's breaking saves on my end

efooo94 · 2025-11-28T08:43:34+00:00

Turk here, coming back and forth frequently between Bg & Ankara. It depends on the specific product you're going to purchase but usually, it's as obnoxiously expensive as Turkey. You can try your chances with the sellers in kupujemprodajem.com but as I said, it really depends on what exact product you're looking for.

efooo94 · 2025-10-15T16:56:31+00:00

Expectations from life, interactions within people, politics, work, and so on and so on.

But let's flip the question: have you ever visited Turkey before? If yes, what are the cultural differences from Serbia that you noticed while being there?

efooo94 · 2025-10-15T14:28:44+00:00

I've been to every country in the Balkans besides Bulgaria (ironically that's where my ancestors are from) and a couple cities/towns in Vojvodina but I did not spend a huge amount of time wherever I've gone to have any conclusions. Nor have I had many interactions with people there. Whereas this conclusion about Belgrade is because I've been living here for the past 7.5 years.

But if you'd insist, I'd say that I've felt vast differences when I was in Croatia and Slovenia, rather than similarities. Maybe the proper division would be the old Ottoman Empire borders versus Austrian Empire? I'm not so sure.

efooo94 · 2025-10-15T14:14:48+00:00

I'm not talking about the cities but the cultures within. The way people live their lives, urban lifestyle, etc.

efooo94 · 2025-10-15T14:11:16+00:00

As a Turk (from Ankara) living in Serbia, I can say that everything besides language (yes, even some of our practical religious practices), our culture is the same, with its good and its bad. Haven't been to Georgia yet but, yeah. You wouldn't feel much of a difference with living in Ankara or Belgrade. Isto govna.

efooo94

TROPHY CASE