Isn't a 3:30 alarm more of a "my phone" thing? The fact is that such a call makes sense when people don't have configurable clocks on their persons. In worlds where people have phones, instead of using a single speaker you distribute it.
Oh?
I think you missed the point. I don't want to hear Muslims blasting their shit at 3:30am, nor do I want to hear right wing Christians blasting their shit at 3:30am. Everyone and their stupid ass religions just need to shut the fuck up in the wee hours of the morning!!
Then you should simply state your point, rather than engaging in disingenuous rhetoric. If you want stronger noise ordinances in your district, that's an issue easily addressed provided your fellow citizens also want such restrictive policies. I don't see noise pollution measures as inherently discriminatory, but they are if only some cultures, activities, religions, etc are being targeted by them. I think that the Minneapolic Council had no intention of restricting religious freedom with their original policy, so once the objection was made they were quick to amend said policy to account for the commonly held desires of their constituency, which is not wholly Muslism but clearly supports the notion of religious freedoms in the aggregate. Not an uncommon stance, in the United States.
Where am I engaging in "disingenous rhetoric?". I posed a hypothetical Christian sub-culture, which I thought was pretty obvious. That's not being disingenous.
If you don't see the connection, I don't know if I can help you. Whataboutism is a stupid rhetorical ploy to begin with, but it becomes hypocritical when you yourself would be the first to complain about your proposed analogous situation. Where's the genuous part?
If your hypothetical Christian group had a long recognized practice of blasting a 3:30 am, it would not matter music or voice was used, since the issues are
The reason you can't help him see it is because you have nothing to show. His rhetoric was not in any way disingenuous; you just made that up.
And he did not engage in whataboutism, "a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation"*. Thebeave was not criticizing progressives for favoring Muslims because somebody had caught him favoring MAGA idiots.
The genuous part was where he pointed out progressives are applying a double standard because they have a double standard.
What actual double standard? All I see is something based on a hypothetical and a conjecture.
What's your point? It's called "expressing an opinion". Feel free to express your own. Do you think if a group of white Maga loving, Trumpsucking Christians wanted to have a call to prayer at 3:30 am by blasting a Ted Nugent song, the Minneapolis city council would have changed their noise ordinance to accommodate them? Do you think if some other city's Republican-run city council changed their noise ordinance to accommodate a group of white Maga loving, Trumpsucking Christians who wanted to have a call to prayer at 3:30 am by blasting a Ted Nugent song, progressives here would be defending them?
I identify as a progressive, and in no way defend loud religiosity from ANYONE.
