Which is why it's much better to clarify, as generally I believe you are misrepresenting me every time you say strawman as noted in previous post.
Also, interpret 'you think' as shorthand for 'based on my best understanding of what you have said in the thread, I believe it would be accurate to state that you believe...'
For example, would it be accurate to assume that you would like to help America become less religious if that were possible in a non-oppressive manner? You claimed that this was a strawman previously.
The problem with the game of straw is that it implies bad faith, and takes for granted that the mistake must be the other person's (in general here, the mistake is frequently being made by the person who cries straw).
In response to such a claim the reality of the situation may be:
1. Strawman: Deliberate misrepresentation - I guess is generally quite rare here
2. Strawman: Accidental misrepresentation carried out in good faith (which may be due to reading error or writing error) - In which case better to point out actual meaning to correct their or your mistake.
3. No strawman: The claim of strawman is a kind of strawman and misrepresents their point. Now both believe they have been misrepresented and problem can't be resolved.
4. No strawman: The claimer doesn't understand their point as it relies on knowledge or concepts that are unfamiliar to them. Again both parties feel misrepresented with no hope of solution..
5. No strawman: Just an attempt to save face. I guess is generally also quite rare.
See 3 above.
Instead of asking for clarification before replying which takes no more time than crying strawman, assuming bad faith and taking the worst possible definition isn't conducive to thought or reasoned debate.
The term is neutral, and SE can be minor and benign or major and oppressive.
Regardless, it tends to result in unintended consequences which become more unpredictable depending on the behaviour you wish to alter.
Convincing people to wear bike helmets is unlikely to have negative consequences that outweigh the benefits, attempting to create a Marxist utopian paradise is likely to have completely unpredictable effects that may very well cause more harm than good.
In answer to your question, certain aspects of law could be SE if their purpose is to change an existing behaviour (banning smoking in public, or wearing seatbelts for example).
Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia
You chose the example of anti-smoking as the best comparison.
Fair enough though, was meant in the sense of social restriction rather than legal but it's ambiguous
Marginalisation is fine and makes no difference to the point.
People in the West say this all the time and it makes next to no difference in the Muslim world. Due to our evolved cognition, outsiders telling people how to live their life tends to breed antagonism rather than understanding.
Outside of the really repressive places though, you will find large numbers of Muslim women who disagree with you on this point. When people perceive an attack on their identity, they become hostile to the person who is attacking them and often, by extension, their values.
For example, Muslims have become much more conservative, in general, than 20 years ago despite the Muslim world being richer and better educated than it was back then. Part of this is a rejection of Western values due to perceived hypocrisy and arrogance and a desire to project a different identity.
This is why I feel general acceptance of universalist policies that developed out of Western ideologies (i.e everyone adopting
and adhering to the UNDHR) are pipe dreams.