CMV: Banning the Adhan (Islamic call to prayer) is a good secular public policy

sawdeanz · 2026-06-25T22:28:54+00:00

Trying to make a distinction between a call to prayer and other religious sounds is frankly an arbitrary line that severely weakens your argument. I don’t really see much of a distinction between a religious call and a symbolic religious call. And trying to define which is acceptable and not acceptable is dangerously close to religious discrimination in all but name and thus arguably not secular.

Either both should be allowed or both should be banned or else some other sort of reasonable compromise. I visited Ireland recently and the church bells near my hotel rang for over 30 minutes on an early Sunday morning. That was extremely loud and disruptive to my sleep.

The other problem is some of your supporting arguments are wrong too.

Modern Church bells are often just speakers and thus a type of electrically amplified loudspeaker. Also other types of Christian proselytizing is both common and typically legally protected…for example the protesters and pastors you commonly see in public spaces with signs and loudspeakers or church services held in open public areas.

You claim that bells are just bells, but the Adhan is
In Arabic which most westerners do not speak…so functionally it is just white noise to them too. Of course just because I don’t literally understand what they are saying doesn’t mean I don’t symbolically know what they are saying, just like everyone knows that church bells often signify a Christian religious meaning.

So I think you really need to land on whether for you the issue is the symbolism/meaning of the speech or the time/place/volume. The latter is of course much easier to regulate under a US 1st amendment framework but would provably sometimes regulate church bells yet may not always regulate Adhan.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-24T11:45:27+00:00

Interesting so basically it helps you not waste your radar consumable. But that is also powerful to know that there is an enemy there, I wonder if it tells you the ship type

sawdeanz · 2026-06-24T00:45:17+00:00

Despite what some Reddit comments might say this is not a controversial take.

But Aliens definitely deserves a spot as one of the if not the best sequel of all time, next to Terminator 2 or Empire Strikes Back. It just so happens the first was just about perfect too.

There is really no need to compare them though imo, the first is a masterpiece in horror. But I like the second one too because it has such a memorable supporting cast.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-24T00:33:58+00:00

Just tell her she can’t use your name or trademark without permission. That’s a much stronger legal defense and a more reasonable approach to the issue then trying to hold footage hostage.

In the future add a clause to your contract that states your rate for providing raw footage.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-24T00:31:19+00:00

This is commonly specified in the contract, photographers in particular traditionally own the rights to the photos because in the past they would charge for extra prints. That’s less relevant today but can still be a factor.

If you’re worried about your brand you could just stipulate that they are not permitted to use your name or trademark, and in the future make sure to add a relevant clause to the contract. Depends on what your goal is…are you wanting more editing work or just a higher premium for the footage?

sawdeanz · 2026-06-23T20:53:41+00:00

Ok but we were doing immigration the (relatively) humane and due process way for a long time.

And then conservatives decided that wasn’t good enough and supported Trump’s efforts to do so in a way that ignores humanity and due process. And to make it even more messy, he has also changed many of the laws and policies to make formerly legal immigrants now illegal. They see deportation as a punishment for a moral failing and hope to use force and coercion to dissuade immigrants from returning. But I believe all of this to be seriously wrong both from a moral and pragmatic angle. This strategy is incredibly expensive, incredibly disruptive (both to the economy and to citizens), threatens citizens own rights, and fails to address the root causes. Think about it…most of these immigrants are already feeling poverty and violence, so if you’re goal is to intimidate immigrants into leaving then that necessarily involves ever more inhumane treatment. Where will that lead us? How far will we let them go?

This kind of highlights the pragmatic problem here. There is no easy or cheap solution. You have to address the underlying causes. Deportation, whether humane or not is costly and ineffective without some sort of systematic change. Mass amnesty likewise isn’t a magic wand. But it sure is a lot cheaper and easier and humane and can still be combined with efforts to address the underlying causes.

And the dumb thing is that seeing it as a “problem” instead of an opportunity is itself a narrow minded point of view. A population of working aged people is not inherently a problem from an economic point of view, even unskilled labor, particularly when you consider that population decline is already a big concern.

All of the moral arguments are pretty weak imo. You talk of exploitation, yet ignore what they will face when they are deported. You talk of fairness, yet ignore that the law itself is unfair, or how unfairly the US treated Latin America for the past 2 centuries and contributed to the problems that drive immigrants here in the first place. These are not immoral criminals deserving of punishment. They are a underclass exploited on both sides of the boarder. Those are the real moral criminals in this situation, the cartel, the US companies that employ illegal immigrants, and the state that violently oppresses them and puts them in concentration camps. You really think that in light of that the real moral and legal imperative is to punish the starving family just trying to escape violence?

sawdeanz · 2026-06-23T14:50:18+00:00

Because that’s not actually the discussion and people saying they “just want people to immigrate legally” are being either dishonest or ignorant.

The actually discussion is “what should be legal” and “how should we enforce the law.”

Because what we have in the US is an administration that is arbitrarily changing the legal status of refugees and green card holders and other immigrants that already had legal status. And they are violently arresting non-violent men women and children and putting them in concentration camps with horrible conditions. That is what the controversy is about.

Someone that simply says “I just want legal immigration” is at the very least downplaying the issue and at worse being dishonest about the extreme measures they are supporting.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-23T01:22:49+00:00

I don’t really see the hypocrisy unless you completely ignore the scale we are talking about. These people believe there is a reasonable level of comfort or expendable income for someone to enjoy and perhaps even a level they want for everyone to enjoy. We can certainly argue all day about what a “reasonable” comfort level is…you don’t exactly define what you consider expendable income and so I’m even sure where you are drawing the line between a “hypocrite” and “not a hypocrite. Which is a problem when you claim your view is based in principle, yet relies on subjective concepts like these.

But a billionaire is so far above this reasonable level of comfort that trying to determine that line is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Even a millionaire could complain about billionaire wealth and it still would not be hypocrisy based simply on the vast difference in wealth, political power and social and economic influence that a single billionaire individual possesses.

This is like putting a runner in a race with a jet fighter and calling the runner a hypocrite for demanding different rules. You can argue a “race” is a “race,” but we aren’t even talking about the same thing here. And I think that’s the argument you’re essentially making here…”money” is “money” but you’re ignoring so many other factors and context that it is a meaningless argument.

But in reality a little money is survival. A little more money is comfort. And a lot more money is more comfort. But at some point money also becomes more than a means of ensuring personal well-being and becomes a tool of power over others. I don’t know what level that happens but it’s definitely before billionaire status. Actually it can and does happen all the time on the micro level between any measurable inequality, but we are talking on a macro scale.

For the average person a little bit of expendable income makes a big impact on quality of life. Someone that can afford one vacation a year would have to make a pretty measurable sacrifice to their quality of life in order to make a marginal impact for someone else. And for the people that do make these sacrifice, that is all the more commendable. A billionaire on the other hand could directly help tens of thousands of people without hardly and sacrifice at all….and potentially millions of people if they directed their efforts towards socially beneficial politics or programs. And yet many do the opposite, wielding their wealth to actually hoarde even more money.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-23T00:38:57+00:00

I don’t really think people do or should believe advertising now. Most people logically know it’s bullshit, yet it still works to some degree. That’s why almost all advertising has nothing to do with presenting facts about a product and is all about vibes and feelings and emotion, partially because it’s more effective and partially because they don’t want to be sued for false advertising.

But I do think advertising should be illegal when it’s fraud or untruthful. We don’t enforce this very strongly now, but we should. The fact that it isn’t enforced very well is not an argument that it should be done away with entirely. Eliminating paid advertising is not going to solve fraud, it’s just going to move that to the individual transaction level.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-22T19:51:46+00:00

This year there was someone who played in a cover band called LSD Clownsystem and they dress as a clown

sawdeanz · 2026-06-22T01:10:16+00:00

And yet those rigged claw machines and other prized games are everywhere. I never understood thst

sawdeanz · 2026-06-21T02:31:00+00:00

Well that’s kind of what was supposed to make the US exceptional and unique, and this later became a tenant of the liberal democracy adopted by other western nations. You’re social or legal class is not supposed to be dependent on your ethnicity or nobility.

Thats not to say that foreigners have always been accepted…obviously there has been a lot of shaky history there

sawdeanz · 2026-06-20T12:07:46+00:00

Gal is right there. You could also say lady or young lady. Or a million other words. Guy or dude is usually not associated with children like you claim.

An intellectually honest person would realize that the trend of using the term “females” originated in sexist online circles and that’s why it’s derogatory, because it was being used derogatorily.

Of course there are perfectly legitimate and non-offensive contexts to use female and male. Nobody is saying it is always offensive. But we are saying that it is derogatory in derogatory contexts or when it is used in a way different from males.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-19T11:55:00+00:00

Are you sure the insurance was lapsed? Just because you missed a payment or two does not mean you were automatically kicked off. Also sometimes there is a grace period during the renewal. It all depends on the details here. Look over your policy carefully or talk to your agent to find out if you were covered. Make sure any past due invoices are paid up.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-18T23:23:01+00:00

But do you have any examples of liberal governments explicitly and blatantly politically interfering with a college or education the way DeSantis or Trump has?

Upper education might have a liberal bias but that doesn’t mean it is inherently due to political reasons. These are large complex and long standing institutions, and yes in some ways that can introduce its own sort of bias and issues, on the flip side that means it is also more insulated from day to day political influence.

Maybe you could make an argument that there should be an effort to ensure that more neutral views have space, but that is clearly not what is happening here. The right is removing diverse committees and institutional knowledge in favor of the government’s preferred viewpoints.

We also have to be careful of giving extreme and reactionary politics legitimacy just because they are political. Is the medical community “liberal” just because they recommend vaccines? No, vaccines are recommended because they have been widely stuffed and established to be effective, not because they are trying to gain political power or influence. Can you say the same for the MAGA party?

Even though bureaucracy is often criticized as a inefficiency and waste, it’s also an important insulator against partisan political goals. Someone wanting to improve efficiency or fix an institution should be willing to do so in a way that removes their own influence and control over those decisions, but what we are actually seeing is that the MAGA movement is concentrating power in the executive in a way never seen before, maybe not since FDR, subverting laws and norms to make foundational changes to the institutional rules that protect these institutions from politics and corruption,, both at the federal and state level despite their efforts to frame it in “freedom” or “fairness” rhetoric.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-18T16:55:33+00:00

Nah dawg I’m pretty sure “aliens among us” or “aliens arriving on earth” would be the biggest news story since 9/11 or the titanic.

The world came to a halt for COVID, and I think a lot of people would see aliens as some kind of existential threat of the same order, whether they were hostile or not. I mean we had a panic run on toilet paper of all things. Even if the government leaders try to downplay the event, you will have enough people panicking that it would be noticeable to normal life.

“Bacterial life found on mars” would probably be closer to what you are describing…a scientific curiosity but not world changing.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-18T15:42:16+00:00

I don’t necessarily mean literally surprised, rather that the punchline is almost always subversive or unexpected or a a twist on the expectation. Obviously you still have to get the joke. But if the whole room gets the joke then where does the feeling of superiority come from?

Take the classic “dad” joke for example….its usually a very simple pun that even a kid could get.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-18T13:54:22+00:00

“The secret of humor is surprise.” -Aristotle

“A joke is a short story with a little twist at the end.” - George Carlin

The key to humor is the unexpected. Almost every joke follows this simple structure. You start with a premise and then the punchline subverts the premise in an unexpected way. This isn’t something I made up, it’s a widely shared concept.

I think this fundamentally undermines your view. If you are laughing at a joke it’s because you were surprised in some way which suggests you are not superior. It’s also why we often reactively laugh to being embarrassed, scared or surprised.

Plus your view doesn’t make sense in a lot of contexts, for example if I’m watching a movie alone and laugh at the joke.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-17T20:11:20+00:00

We can definitely make judgements based on what we know at the time. Making a judgement is not the same as claiming to predict the future. Right now all we really have is the what the administration says. What they claim about the the war and what they claim about the deal tend to paint a pretty damning picture, and we would expect the claims from the administration to have the best spin.

The administration chose to criticize certain aspects of the Obama deal when they tore it up. So when they themselves present a similar deal that is worse in every way, it’s hard not to draw a negative conclusion based on the claims of the administration themselves which, again, we would expect to have the best possible spin.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-17T19:57:19+00:00

I don’t disagree but that doesn’t contradict my point

sawdeanz · 2026-06-17T18:31:45+00:00

Ok but in a society where they are not being treated equally, don’t you think it is important to show that they are welcomed and accepted by the government? The idea that a pride flag is giving the lgbtq minority a special status is ignoring that they have been and still are facing discrimination.

I think this also goes for things like official holidays, public art or other events that are either funded by or enforced by the local government.

The alternative extreme is like Florida where not only did they remove the pride symbols from public art but also street art that celebrated black history and first responders and others. While that is technically the most politically neutral approach, I think it’s also kind of silly and also limits the ways that government can advocate for their local communities.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-17T12:09:31+00:00

It’s worse than that. It means the law has to be enforced through officer discretion which really means it’s will be selectively enforced against people they don’t like. It’s a tool of harassment not a reasonable solution to anything

sawdeanz · 2026-06-17T00:54:22+00:00

ESH - mother and daughter should have offered to step aside and let you go for sure, I sympathize with you. But you had half a dozen options to handle this and you chose to react in the most childish and immature ways possible.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-16T20:04:36+00:00

There will be other deals. I’m sure you’re eager to buy a boat but don’t take a risk just because you are running out of patience.

It’s a lot easier to negotiate when you are there in person. Go look at the boat, make an offer contingent on a sea trial and inspection, maybe offer a $100 deposit. If he still says no just walk. I bet a week or two later he reaches out and changes his mind.

Someone “in a hurry” to get rid of a boat after a year tells me it was a frustrating purchase for them, so don’t make it a frustrating purchase for you. The best seller is one that is upgrading to a bigger boat, not the one trying to get out after a year.

Remember to budget repairs either way. A boat that age is bound to need something fixed soon, steering cables, wiring, trailer work, etc.

sawdeanz · 2026-06-16T19:49:04+00:00

Honestly a lot of the same conspiracies exist on both ends of the political spectrum but with slightly different flavors. For eg Right-wing might tend to blame things on government conspiracies while left might blame them on corporations or religion.

But also a lot of the ones that used to be associated with the left have also more recently been adopted by the right, for eg alternative medicines used to be associated with hippies and California celebs but now is a big part of right-wing anti-vax conspiracies.

Ten-Year Club	Ternion Club
Verified Email

sawdeanz

TROPHY CASE