Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship after refusing to shake hands - Sensationalist Headlines

You can assimilate without abandoning your own culture.

Yeah that's why I said "maybe it's different in Europe". "Assimilation" sounds like right wing dogwhistle to me in America, like it implies an ethnic or cultural exclusivity, like when Trump said he wanted more nordic people coming to the US instead of people from "shitholes"

God damn you are a total scumbag. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a human conversation with you. You're 100% caught up in "winning" this spat with me, leaving no room for basic decency, assuming omnipotence over all others' thoughts. You don't care about what I tried to ask at all. You're a hypocrite, trying for "points", as you put it.

Assimilation means that you share the civic values of the country of application. Gender equality may be one of those values. Another criterion of lesser importance may be willingness to be integrated into the community, rather than take the US melting pot salad bowl approach where distinct communities simply happen to live next to each other (and the associated tensions). Ultimately, it has little to do with your religion or culinary tradition. As draconian as Swiss citizenship conditions seem to be, I doubt they would refuse someone for disliking fondue if they fit those civic criteria.

I don't give a shit about winning because there is nothing to win. I give a shit that you did the wrong thing. Your post was absolutely, demonstrably using incorrect information. You open with a smug comment about how people defending this are supposed to hate sexism claims, which is just a strawman of everyone defending this. What you asked meritted no response because it was disconnected from the events that happened. As I said you came in to this posting with incorrect information that had already been addressed in the thread let alone the article, and you tried to strawman the others in the thread. That is not how you actually engage in a conversation in good faith so I have no interest in entertaining that. And as far as not giving a shit how I come across to you, that doesn't impact me being willing to talk with you or anybody. That just says I'm not going to swayed by your opinion of me. If you think I'm an asshole, fine, that doesn't hurt me. If you think I'm the greatest thing ever, that's fine too, it's not going to do anything either. At the end of the day I care more about the subject matter than I care what people think of me.

If you cared about the subject matter you'd be willing to actually discuss it with me instead of throwing around accusations of what I did or didn't read. Is it so impossible to re-read my posts from a perspective of someone who DID read, but still had questions? That's part of having adult conversations. If the idea of seeing another person's perspective is inconceivable for you, you're not fit to talk about the issue.

I am willing to discuss it, but you're going to have to reapproach this matter honestly. You can't ignore parts of what actually happened and just run with one part of it. That is the core problem. Seeing yours or anyone else's side isn't the issue, it's not discussing the matter as it actually is. If debate fictional scenarios, we'll get nowhere, nobody will be on the same page. For this to actually be a conversation, you have to be on the same page as everyone else, working with the same information.

You can assimilate and keep your culture. It's just called being bicultural.

Yeah but other than that, I also want people to bring their cultures here and contribute to American culture by adding something from their own

Again with being a mind-reader? Is it impossible for you to comprehend a meaning to my original post that includes having read the article? You are not infallible. Stop acting like you are. Stop having a one-sided conversation with no compromise.

It doesn't take a mind reader to just read your posts. I've read them multiple times, I'm pretty sure many others have as well. Your original post neglected key information and has a scenario that was not accurate. That leads to really two causes: not reading or misrepresenting. Again, we all have to be on the same page, we can't have one person talking about something entirely different. If you're talking about things that didn't happen and haven't been established, how is anyone else supposed to have a conversation about it?

What did I neglect? What did I misrepresent? I said there would be other reasons for denying the couple citizenship; I was asking for a conversation on the perspective of handshakes. I specifically said I wasn't criticizing the Swiss government for their decision. All I did was question the idea that not shaking hands with someone of the opposite sex was inherently sexist. You're the one who turned it into some bullshit meta argument.

You only talked about the handshakes, tried to strawman others in the thread on the basis of the handshake and said that "they could have more reason. But..." That's the problem. That wasn't the only reason, they said this in the article that it wasn't the only reason, the other posters in the thread before you had said this same thing. There was no "Could" because they absolutely did. The fact you you tried to present that as the case, and argued about there not being any other reason, and tried to strawman other posters in the thread who had brought it up, that is dishonest.