How gays sound like

[Loren Pechtel]

The main problem in Sweden has been the racism of the liberals. They think they're not racist. But they are. Non ethnic Swedes are tokenised and not listened to. That has led to a situation where Islamists have managed to penetrate most major parties. Have given refuge to Islamists chased out of the Middle-East. So now the Muslim brotherhoods headquarters is in Sweden. The Islamist politicians haven't hid their Islamism. The liberal ethnic Swedes just haven't confronted them, for complex reasons that I don't really understand. I think it's a bizarre behaviour. The super liberal Green Party had so many Islamists in high positions, when it was revealed in the press, the party just collapsed. It came as a huge shock to the ethnic Swedes in the party. They just hadn't seen it coming.

The left hates the Jews. Islam hates the Jews. Thus Islam must be the good guys. And all evil comes from those in power, the side not in power is always right. Thus, once again, support Islam.

How dare you point out the Emperor's attire?!?!

The western right has also traditionally hated Jews. They seem to have stopped. How do you explain that?

Same thing. The right doesn't like Islam, the Jews oppose Islam, thus the Jews must be right.

And there are the end timers who want to egg on the conflict to bring about the final conflict.

I find the lefts antisemitism baffling. The left is supposed to be on the side of the oppressed. But not this time.

Islam only started hating Jews in 1948. Islam is more straight forward like that. They like winning. Jews beat them. So now they hate Jews

Islam has always hated Jews, but they tolerate subjugated populations.

Look at 1948 as an abuse victim escaping their abuser. Think of how far abusers will go to get back at the one that got away. Not exactly unheard of for it to culminate in murder-suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The main problem in Sweden has been the racism of the liberals. They think they're not racist. But they are. Non ethnic Swedes are tokenised and not listened to. That has led to a situation where Islamists have managed to penetrate most major parties. Have given refuge to Islamists chased out of the Middle-East. So now the Muslim brotherhoods headquarters is in Sweden. The Islamist politicians haven't hid their Islamism. The liberal ethnic Swedes just haven't confronted them, for complex reasons that I don't really understand. I think it's a bizarre behaviour. The super liberal Green Party had so many Islamists in high positions, when it was revealed in the press, the party just collapsed. It came as a huge shock to the ethnic Swedes in the party. They just hadn't seen it coming.

The left hates the Jews. Islam hates the Jews. Thus Islam must be the good guys. And all evil comes from those in power, the side not in power is always right. Thus, once again, support Islam.

How dare you point out the Emperor's attire?!?!

That is not how any real person on the left actually thinks. It is, however bigoted as fuck to consider anyone "the other side" and thus evil by dint of their nationality, religion, culture, race, sexuality, or any other factor that a person is raised to by circumstance of birth. The very fact that you see politics as a zero sum game that one race must "win" by destroying another is exactly what makes you more like a Jihaadist in mentality - they are trying to solve their society's problems by blaming and attacking perceived outsiders as well.

Read!!

I don't see how you are interpreting what I said as in any way saying that I think it's a zero-sum game. It certainly is not, nor am I even suggesting anyone sees it as zero sum. Rather, this is about the enemy of my enemy.

The one thing here that is zero sum is political power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The western right has also traditionally hated Jews. They seem to have stopped.

Are you fucking kidding me? With openly practicing neo-Nazis in every right wing government on the planet? It's clear whose "side" you're on, and it is not a pretty picture.

The resurgence has been recent, driven by a very false picture painted by social media. And some of them are end timers--support Israel to bring about the final conflict.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Z

My impression of you stands, shallow and ignorant of topics you raise. Opinio9ated.

When you get into trouble you pivot,i like jugging over to Jews.

You're free to have whatever opinion you want of me.

What you call woke is an opinionated view, not hte definition of woke as an ideology. A politcal rant.

Anything debated in politics have a variety of definitions. That's usually why people keep discussing them.

You say you are are straight, but seem to have a kind of obsession with gays. Rnating about lesbians taking the L out of LGBTQ+. Stereotypes of how hays talk.

I am in the queer scene. My closest friends are all over the sexual identities map. I care about my community. I think caring about those around you, your culture and context is normal. Don't you?

If there are gays themselves who acknowledge "the gay voice" its hardly a stereotype.

I go to a grocery store in the main gay neighborhood of Seattle. I just see people. Different groups have different speech and slang, nothing new. Latinos. Blacks. I live on the edge of Chinatown. I hear Chinese. I don't take any special noice of any of it, it al is what it is. I know when I am being insulted in Spanish and how to insult in Spanish Latino slang.

Your OP has a much wder scope than gays. Oh, I forgot you don't want to discuss your OP. You want to rant on woke.

Sure, different groups have different ways of talking. Which is also interesting.

You sound like you are defending something. Are you? As if saying that some gays talk extra gay is a slur or an insult? Do you think that? I don't. To me its value neutral. Its just another interesting thing in the world

 

[DrZoidberg]

To me woke simply means being aware of social issues and acting accordingly.

If you are in a social situation and somebody is making racist, slurs say something.

The problem over here it has been carrying it to an extreme in some cases. Witch hunts.

I think what he's objecting to is the repeated use of "racism" or "sexism" etc as a justification for wrong.

For example, calling it racist when some of us object to the wrongs of the Islamists. Islamist certainly isn't a race. It's a segment of a religion and one that causes a fair percentage of the evil in the current world.

I get the impression leftists on this forum routinely conflate islamism with Islam.

Islamism is an extremist ideology on par with Nazism. Islam is all kinds of stuff in one massive, hard to generalise, bag.

Another mistake leftists here also often struggle with is which Muslims are reffered to.

Saying that almost all honour killings committed in the west are committed by Muslims, is not the same thing as saying that all Muslims commit honour killings, or even condone it.

I'm looking at you, Politesse

Facts are just facts. Repeating a true fact is value neutral. Reality just is.

And denying the reality of a questionable behaviour, limitted to one easily identifiable group, for the sake of political correctness does nobody any favours. I'd argue its dangerous, because it prevents us dealing with it.

The Pakistani grooming gangs of North England is a good example. In hindsight religion had likely nothing to do with it. These were just ethnically Pakistani loser men bitter at the world. Ethnic Brits of the same demographic also did these things to girls. The only difference is that the ethnic Brits got caught. While fear of seeming racist allowed the ethnic Pakistanis to keep going.

Political correctness is poison in a society. It hides the stuff we should talk about.

 

[bilby]

And even when such control starts out benign it takes on a life of it's own. (For example, Jewish dietary laws--which actually made very good sense when and where they were laid down.)

No, they didn't.

They were always arbitrary and served only to make those who followed them feel as though they were nobly sacrificing convenience to please God, unlike their sub-human neighbours.

They can, (just like the Hindu laws against eating beef, or the Catholic laws against eating meat on certain days, or any other religious strictures) be rationalised as making at least some kind of sense if one takes a presentist stance and assumes that the people who wrote these laws knew stuff we now know, but that they could not possibly have known.

"It made very good sense at the time" is a post-hoc rationalisation used by almost all religions today to justify their various absurd rules.

But they never made "very good sense", and nor were they ever intended to. They are sacrifices. Sacrifices make sense only if your gods are real, and are pleased by those sacrifices, neither of which has ever been true for any religion. The point of a sacrifice is to make people feel special and different, through voluntariliy making their own lives harder than is otherwise necessary.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And even when such control starts out benign it takes on a life of it's own. (For example, Jewish dietary laws--which actually made very good sense when and where they were laid down.)

No, they didn't.

They were always arbitrary and served only to make those who followed them feel as though they were nobly sacrificing convenience to please God, unlike their sub-human neighbours.

They can, (just like the Hindu laws against earing beef, or the Catholic laws against eating meat on certain days, or any other religious strictures) be rationalised as making at least some kind of sense if one takes a presentist stance and assumes that the people who wrote these laws knew stuff we now know, but that they could not possibly have known.

"It made very good sense at the time" is a post-hoc rationalisation used by almost all religions today to justify their various absurd rules.

But they never made "very good sense", and nor were they ever intended to. They are sacrifices. Sacrifices make sense only if your gods are real, and are pleased by those sacrifices, neither of which has ever been true for any religion. The point of a sacrifice is to make people feel special and different, through voluntariliy making their own lives harder than is otherwise necessary.

The 113 Jewish comandments, is among other things, a tax system. By controlling how sacrifices are done at the temple, priests can skim money. This isn't inherently evil. Every organised society must find ways to pay for shared civic institutions. In early Judaism there was no separation between state and religion.

The best explanation I have heard for the rule against eating pork, is that it was a cultural marker. Jews were pasturalists and reared goats. The farmers had pigs. As the Jews conquered farming communities they set themselves up as a ruling elite. Not eating pork and following Jewish comandments became status markers.

All this was completely standard in the bronze age world.

What makes Jews special is that they keep doing it today.

At no point was these dietary restrictions about health.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a fun, surpringly acccurate, political map of Sweden.

"Blatte" is a racist slang for Middle-Eastern immigrant.

Worth noting is that every group on this political map is named after the unflattering slurs used about them by their detractors

 

[steve_bank]

Z
Islamism is an extremist ideology on par with Nazism. Islam is all kinds of stuff in one massive, hard to generalise, bag.

In the Ottoman Empire Jews and others were free to practice their religion as long as they were loyal citizens of the empire. Note hat in the first Crusade Jews and Musli9mks fought side by side to defend Jerusalem.

In fact modern Israel modeled its handling of religion after the Ottomans. There has been no state secular marriage in Israel, it is relegated to individual religions.

Modern Israel inherited several legal, administrative, and cultural structures from the Ottoman Empire, either directly or passed down through the subsequent British Mandate.

Orthodox Jews canbe just as extreme as conservative Muslims. We are seeing it play out in West Bank as Jewish settlers arr attacking Palestinians and driving them out of their homes. Netanyahu is the Jewish versus of Islamism, Zionism.

Islamism, also called political Islam, is a set of beliefs that says Islam should guide politics and laws. People who follow this idea think religious rules should shape society and government.

In that context the Arab Muslim marches are Islamist. Certainly Iran.

AI Overview
No, the Quran is not mentioned in the Indonesian Constitution (the 1945 Constitution, or Undang-Undang Dasar 1945).

Role of Islamic Law
National Law vs. Sharia: The Quran and Islamic law are not elevated to the level of constitutional law.
Limited Application: Islamic values and jurisprudence influence specific domestic legislation (such as marriage laws, religious courts for Muslims, and zakat management), and the province of Aceh holds special autonomy to implement regional Sharia regulations, but this operates under the umbrella of Indonesia's secular-national legal framework.

In Muslim majority sates Quran does influence politics and laws.

Malaysia
Constitutional Status of Islam
Supreme Law: Article 4(1) of the [Federal Constitution of Malaysia](agc.gov.ph or similar context) establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law inconsistent with it is void. The text does not cite the Quran as a legal source or define Islamic law textually.Religion of the Federation: Article 3(1) states that "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony".State Jurisdiction: The Constitution gives individual states the power to create and administer Islamic personal/family law and Sharia courts, but these apply strictly to Muslims and are subordinate to federal civil law.

I looked at all this before. Then there is the long European dominance of the Ctaholi9c church, until finally in the 19th century they lost their physical power. Modern Italy walled them in the Vatican..

The radical Islamicists are looking for a kind of restoration of the Ottomans and a clap hate, supreme leader.

Islamists generally do not seek the literal re-establishment of the historical Ottoman Empire or its dynastic monarchy, but many embrace Neo-Ottomanism—an ideological framework that idealizes the Ottoman past to project modern political, cultural, and religious influence across former Ottoman territories.Goals of Islamist and Neo-Ottoman MovementsCultural and Political Influence: Proponents advocate for stronger diplomatic, economic, and security ties in the Middle East, the Balkans, and North Africa.Islamic Solidarity: The Ottoman legacy is often used as a symbol to promote leadership and unity within the global Muslim community (Ummah).Rejection of Strict Secularism: Figures influenced by this trend frequently critique strict secular nationalism in favor of integrating traditional religious values into public life.Limits on Restoration AspirationsNo Dynastic Return: Mainstream Islamist political actors do not campaign to bring back the House of Osman or a hereditary sultanate.Nation-State Realities: Modern political movements operate within established national borders and international frameworks rather than attempting literal imperial irredentism.Internal Division: Public opinion on the Ottoman heritage remains mixed, with strong nationalist and secular factions heavily defending the current republican system.Would you like to explore how Neo-Ottomanism influences modern Turkish foreign policy, or look into the specific history of the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924?

 

[steve_bank]

Z

My impression of you stands, shallow and ignorant of topics you raise. Opinio9ated.

When you get into trouble you pivot,i like jugging over to Jews.

You're free to have whatever opinion you want of me.

What you call woke is an opinionated view, not hte definition of woke as an ideology. A politcal rant.

Anything debated in politics have a variety of definitions. That's usually why people keep discussing them.

You say you are are straight, but seem to have a kind of obsession with gays. Rnating about lesbians taking the L out of LGBTQ+. Stereotypes of how hays talk.

I am in the queer scene. My closest friends are all over the sexual identities map. I care about my community. I think caring about those around you, your culture and context is normal. Don't you?

If there are gays themselves who acknowledge "the gay voice" its hardly a stereotype.

I go to a grocery store in the main gay neighborhood of Seattle. I just see people. Different groups have different speech and slang, nothing new. Latinos. Blacks. I live on the edge of Chinatown. I hear Chinese. I don't take any special noice of any of it, it al is what it is. I know when I am being insulted in Spanish and how to insult in Spanish Latino slang.

Your OP has a much wder scope than gays. Oh, I forgot you don't want to discuss your OP. You want to rant on woke.

Sure, different groups have different ways of talking. Which is also interesting.

You sound like you are defending something. Are you? As if saying that some gays talk extra gay is a slur or an insult? Do you think that? I don't. To me its value neutral. Its just another interesting thing in the world

My question to you was why pick on gays for speech when it is a more general topic, and why single out lesbians for your anti woke rants?

Which is why I asked you if you support gay rights, and you gave a silly evasive response.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Another thing about bronze age dietary restrictions. Especially when it comes to protein. Not eating something is a flex. In a world where food is scarce, starvation is commonplace and where 90% of your calories come from bread, volontarily refraining from certain types of common and nutritous foods is a way of showing how rich you are, and how in control of your destiny you are

The Greenland vikings is a good example. Rich vikings ate pork and beef. Poor vikings ate fish.

For reasons nobody quite understand, when the Vikings settled Greenland (an empty pristine land devoid of any other humans), they refused to eat any fish. All their protein was from pork, beef and goat. Greenland isn't suitable for grazing animals. Later the inuit showed up on Greenland. They ate fish, and thrived. When the inuit decided to come down and kill all the vikings, they found that the vikings had already all starved to death. They chose to rather die than accept, what they perceive, was a poor man's diet. We know this because they kept diaries.

Self image is important.

I think that's what the Jewish prescription against pork was about

 

[DrZoidberg]

Z

My impression of you stands, shallow and ignorant of topics you raise. Opinio9ated.

When you get into trouble you pivot,i like jugging over to Jews.

You're free to have whatever opinion you want of me.

What you call woke is an opinionated view, not hte definition of woke as an ideology. A politcal rant.

Anything debated in politics have a variety of definitions. That's usually why people keep discussing them.

You say you are are straight, but seem to have a kind of obsession with gays. Rnating about lesbians taking the L out of LGBTQ+. Stereotypes of how hays talk.

I am in the queer scene. My closest friends are all over the sexual identities map. I care about my community. I think caring about those around you, your culture and context is normal. Don't you?

If there are gays themselves who acknowledge "the gay voice" its hardly a stereotype.

I go to a grocery store in the main gay neighborhood of Seattle. I just see people. Different groups have different speech and slang, nothing new. Latinos. Blacks. I live on the edge of Chinatown. I hear Chinese. I don't take any special noice of any of it, it al is what it is. I know when I am being insulted in Spanish and how to insult in Spanish Latino slang.

Your OP has a much wder scope than gays. Oh, I forgot you don't want to discuss your OP. You want to rant on woke.

Sure, different groups have different ways of talking. Which is also interesting.

You sound like you are defending something. Are you? As if saying that some gays talk extra gay is a slur or an insult? Do you think that? I don't. To me its value neutral. Its just another interesting thing in the world

My question to you was why pick on gays for speech when it is a more general topic, and why single out lesbians for your anti woke rants?

Which is why I asked you if you support gay rights, and you gave a silly evasive response.

Why do you call it, "picking on gays"?

I think its an odd choice of phrase.

I think it says more about you and your values, than mine. It follows that you must think talking like that is shameful. Why do you think it is?

I think this thread and the video in the OP celebrates diversity. It shines a light into an aspect of the gay world. I too have wondered why some gays talk like that. I think its interesting. The gay guys in the video seems to agree.

The fact that Politesse finds it offensive doesn't mean anything. She's primed to twist anything and everything into it being offensive. But that doesn't explain why you are doing the same?

 

[Politesse]

I get the impression leftists on this forum routinely conflate islamism with Islam.

Islamism is an extremist ideology on par with Nazism. Islam is all kinds of stuff in one massive, hard to generalise, bag.

Then it doesn't make much sense to discriminate against all Muslims, then, does it? Ban them all from seeking refuge in Europe and the US? Slaughter their children in endless, generational wars? You even acknowledge here that most are innocent of your charges, yet you promote bigotry and violence against innocents. That is hypocritical and disgusting.

 

[Politesse]

The fact that Politesse finds it offensive doesn't mean anything. She's primed to twist anything and everything into it being offensive

It's actually a pretty short list. People who promote or excuse genocide, people who pretend to be dumber than they are, people who insult public service, and pop stars who go all breathy on a music recording.

What offends you, Dr Zoidberg?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I get the impression leftists on this forum routinely conflate islamism with Islam.

Islamism is an extremist ideology on par with Nazism. Islam is all kinds of stuff in one massive, hard to generalise, bag.

Then it doesn't make much sense to discriminate against all Muslims, then, does it? Ban them all from seeking refuge in Europe and the US? Slaughter their children in endless, generational wars? You even acknowledge here that most are innocent of your charges, yet you promote bigotry and violence against innocents. That is hypocritical and disgusting.

I don't find it meaningful to talk with you. I'm not going to argue against the voices in your head. I recommend you find a therapist for whatever it is you are dealing with, because I refuse to be yours

And I'd like to remind you that earlier in this thread sided with Swedish homophobic Islamist conservatives because your responses are mindless. You can't be bothered to understand anything. It makes it pointless to interact with you

 

[Elixir]

Islamism is an extremist ideology on par with Nazism. Islam is all kinds of stuff in one massive, hard to generalise, bag.

Then it doesn't make much sense to discriminate against all Muslims, then, does it?

I don't find it meaningful to talk with you. I'm not going to argue against the voices in your head.

The voices in Poli’s head make more sense than your petulant refusal to address the point those voices make.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If there's anyone here still stubbornly clinging to the notion that the gay voice isn't a thing.. here's an example. But perhaps they're faking it and its all a conspiracy?



Anyone who has denied it in this thread, I think, is just an embarrasing contrarian. You couldn't have been trying to deny a more obvious and more easy thing to demonstrate.

Anyway

 

[DrZoidberg]

The fact that Politesse finds it offensive doesn't mean anything. She's primed to twist anything and everything into it being offensive

It's actually a pretty short list. People who promote or excuse genocide, people who pretend to be dumber than they are, people who insult public service, and pop stars who go all breathy on a music recording.

What offends you, Dr Zoidberg?

Idiocy. So tough luck for you.

 

[Politesse]

If there's anyone here still stubbornly clinging to the notion that the gay voice isn't a thing..

Is there?

 

[pood]

For me, the real question remains: Why is any of this important, and why did Z start this thread? Did he get bored rooting on the slaughter of Gazans?