No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
If you were to listen to Anglo Canadians when they talk about French Canadians trying to protect their culture, that word would be "racist" because they feel persecuted by the fact that we don't want to assimilate.
I think the racist label has more to do with the way french Quebec leaders go about supposedly protecting their culture. Limiting religious expression (Bill 21), no longer allowing anglos to access essential services in English, mandating that new immigrants become fluid in french within 6 months I believe? The idea that Quebec has language police has been a running joke for years.
They can claim these steps are taken to protect Quebec culture, but they seem pretty targeted to me. Anyway, I'm anglo and was born and raised in Quebec, so am I just not part of the culture?
Supposedly?
French was in decline until the introduction of Bill 101 and it needed to be updated to reflect today's reality and to patch some of the flaws in it.
Anglos can still receive services in their language as it's something protected by the Constitution.
Is it that far-fetched to communicate with immigrants in the official language of the place they decided to live in? No matter how long we would have given them, some people would have been mad that we didn't just communicate with them in English forever meaning they would feel like they don't need to learn French to live in Quebec (like many Anglo-Quebecois feel).
As for Bill 21, Quebec had a hard split with religion in the 60s contrary to the rest of Canada and religion is treated like something that stays in the private sphere by French Quebecois. Considering our history with the church and how it might have protected our culture but it also oppressed us, it's no wonder that we want a true separation of religion and State.
I'll ask you something I never get a real answer to, should a judge be allowed to wear a political party logo on their robe? Because that's currently forbidden at both the provincial and federal level and it's also something protected by freedom of expression, just like religious expression.
French being in decline is apparently not as straightforward as that.
Source 1 Source 2
Likewise, neither is the ability to access services. Even if service in your language is technically available according to the constitution, the quality and equality of these services arguably suffers for anyone who is not a french quebecer (see the healthcare, court and justice sections). Anecdotally, I had trouble accessing many government services in English even before bill 96. Ive been hung up on several times when asking for service in English, even when it was offered to me in a menu or whatever. Luckily I'm okay at French so I got by. Someone from a country that speaks a language which doesnt resemble French whatsoever may struggle. Or someone with a disability like Autism as cited in the gazette article above. Especially with only 6 months to learn a new language, which is just not a long enough time in many cases. Overall I agree that its reasonable to expect most people to learn french if they intend to stay in quebec long term.
The bill 21 debate is tough, because im not religious or French. I'm against the bill on a personal level, but dont feel I can really argue from that view alone. However, the bill does seem to impact non-christian faiths more negatively.
The political logo argument probably doesnt get many answers because its a pretty poor comparison in my opinion. I dont have to be religious to know that someone's faith is more integral to who they are as a person, their identity, than any political affiliation in most cases. So long as that sort of expression isn't hurting anyone in Quebec directly (religious violence, etc. specifically) I dont see what right Quebec politicians have to interfere with that.
As an outsider with no horse in the race, I thought this a good discussion.
In the end, I think maybe Quebec gets what it wants: I have no interest in visiting a place that tries to police its "culture" that much.