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