That doesn’t change anything. What a bigoted reach of a comment.
It is just a statement of logical facts. You are seeing bigotry where none was implied.
It is telling that you chose to concentrate on the Islamic population
[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
What's X?
2. locals felt safer before because they were nude among people with the same culture towards nudity, now they don't anymore because there's a bigger chance to be sexualized by people from different cultures
Drawing a really long bow there tbh.
They giggle, join the group, create wide expectations on their heads and then try to spend the whole time not embarrassing themselves.
Then they go back home to oversell the stories to their peers. Most of them stop talking about it after getting tired of the usual responses ranging from "where is Finland?" to "if all I wanted was to see naked women, I'd go to the nearest strip joint."
I doubt that people will be basing their relationships based on such a secondary aspect of their cultural values. Where they live, their close family, where they go to school, what type of activities they do after school and what type of activities and relationships their parents have... all of that is a lot more relevant to determine their social circle than "strong affinity around the interest for skinny dipping"
IRL social groups also self select. Do you hang out with everyone you went to school with? No, there is selection.
> where they go to school, what type of activities they do after school and what type of activities and relationships their parents have..
all of which are effected by culture and religion.
> strong affinity around the interest for skinny dipping
Social interaction with the opposite sex, consumption of alcohol, and other social-meeting-place-determining are others. And if Finns have strong church community (I'm not sure they do) that might be another.
The original example suggested social groups would suddenly have 50% Muslim membership, enough to stop a bunch of people who wanted to do something from doing it because it would cause so much strife in their social group. This is unrealistic.
Is also the case that young Finning Muslim immigrant aren't necessarily going to influence their native (European/Finnish) counterparts as much as the other way around - maybe more Muslims will try skinny dipping.
Of course, but the point is exactly that there are plenty of other things that are more important to determine the affinity between peers.
> all of which are effected by culture and religion.
In the US, maybe so. In Europe, not so much. My experience in Berlin is that even though you might notice some clustering in different demographics (e.g, parts of the city where you see more Turks, others with more Polish, Russian, Greeks, Vietnamese, etc...) this separation is not strict. It might be that in France this segregation is more explicit, but what I hear from my French friends is that their division goes on the lines of "French/Non-French".
> The original example suggested social groups would suddenly have 50% Muslim membership.
It doesn't have to be 50%. Consider a scenario where muslims are a minority and they are not segregated/ghettoised. So, for every group of 5-6 close friends, you could have one muslim. Whenever one of these groups has to choose for an activity, they would know that by choosing "skinny dipping" they would be excluding their nudity-averse friend. So all these groups would end up looking for something else to do.
> enough (...) to cause so much strife in their social group
No one is saying about "strife". This is not a polarizing issue! You have someone in your group of friends who has some type of restriction about the activities and there are other alternatives that can appreciated by all, there is no "problem" to be solved.
> maybe more Muslims will try skinny dipping.
This shows a complete disconnect to reality and/or wishful thinking. Do you know any Muslims? Do you understand how display of modesty is a central part of their beliefs?
I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. skinny dipping aversion isn't a random quirk, it follows from general conservatism.
> effected by culture and religion
clustering of affinities.
> they would be excluding their nudity-averse friend. So all these groups would end up looking for something else to do.
or exclude their friend from the activity? The original post made the point: "You've just made 5 people uncomfortable"
> No one is saying about "strife". This is not a polarizing issue!
"You've just made 5 people uncomfortable".
> This shows a complete disconnect to reality and/or wishful thinking.
I think the same of you..
> Do you know any Muslims?
yep
> Do you understand how display of modesty is a central part of their beliefs?
I'm sure for some it is.
Does it matter? What is your argument? That people can only be friends if they share a very similar outlook in life?
> "You've just made 5 people uncomfortable"
Aren't you reading a bit too much into this? "Making someone uncomfortable" is not something that needs to lead people distancing themselves from a friendly relationship.
> or exclude their friend from the activity?
So, in a group of friends who are looking for something to do together, you think that the the more natural course of action is to remove your friend from the circle, instead of finding another activity that can be inclusive. Is this your idea of friendship?
No, that they are more likely to, you are adding the hyperbole.
> remove your friend from the circle
No, you added the scenario "a group of friends who are looking for something to do together".
The scenario is "a group of friends want to go to the sauna".
I don't know what "remove your friend from the circle" means, but it means the friend who won't want to go, won't be asked.
> finding another activity that can be inclusive
The activity is exclusive if you're invited. That some don't want to go doesn't mean it isn't.
You are looking at this as one specific instance of an event, like this is a static system. What I am talking about is if you look at a ongoing series of "Here is a group of friends that like to hangout together (i.e, there is established affinity) and want to find something to do."
Do you agree that all it takes is one member of the group to say "I will definitely not go to sauna, how about we go {to non-nudist lake/ out for an ice-cream / make a pic-nic at the park / outdoor cinema} instead?" to cause a substantial drop in overall "friends going to the sauna events"?
> The activity is exclusive if you're invited. That some don't want to go doesn't mean it isn't.
Of course it is exclusive. It's not about "does not want to go", it is inviting to do something that violates their core beliefs. It doesn't mean that the excluded person "needs to feel offended" or "take it as a micro-aggression" or any other woke BS like that... but it is undeniable that if part of the group (frequently) opts into an exclusionary activity instead of something that all can do, then these people should really evaluate if they are really close friends.
Fat Freddy, i believe.