WaPo: Muslims hate homos. Clearly, this is Drumpflemort's fault
(acecomments.mu.nu)
Comments (39)
sorted by:
The left fetishizes Islam because it represents a threat to the stability of Western culture and society. But as we've seen with the trans debate, they will absolutely turn on them in an instant to protect their sacred cows.
it's shrodingers love affair.
on one hand, they love islam because it's an enemy of western white culture.
on the other hand, they hate islam because muslims want to exterminate the tiny hat crowd.
What's weird is that it's only sort of. They have this super-weird double-think going on where depending on crazy circumstances, giving your friend a bro-job is totally not gay bro. However, homosexuality is somehow also obviously evil.
Man Love Thursday is very, very real.
I remember having a "Culture Expert" try to deny it and explain to our military unit that we just saw men holding hands and assumed it was a gay couple. That, however, does not explain the dudes giving head in the alleyway, giving us a thumbs up.
Also, so is, "It's not gay since you're not getting married."
I think one of the craziest things Doc ever told me about was the time he had to explain sex with women to an Afghan, who was thoroughly confused and repulsed by the idea. He thought they had penises and everything.
Muslim leadership also routinely engage in pedophilia with both boys and girls. Mostly, they're just hypocrites.
Typically girls. Weirdly, pedophilia with boys is much more frowned upon. Probably something related to Mohammed.
Officially, yes. Unofficially, Sheikhs and Emirs all over the Gulf States and beyond can get away with violating Shariah and doing whatever they want. And they do.
It's not just the top, though. Plenty of the plebs engage in the same thing.
Not really. They're okay with raping and mentally breaking boys as long as their victims belong to the races they want exterminated. The victims are usually the children of native peoples of any country they invade.
No, Islam really doesn't care about race. It cares about religion. They rape white girls because they are Christian. They rape Yasidi girls because they are (also) Christian.
I should have clarified races and religions. Aren't Yazidis some kind of indigenous group native to the middle east?
Most of the people there are indigenous. I was confusing the Yazidis and Assyrian Christians.
They'll still rape them and sell them into sexual slavery (always have).
You'd be hard pressed to find a human who isn't a hypocrite. However this especially runs rapid among the Western left so it isn't that surprising they suck Muslim dick.
We could do with that kind of doublethink. Let people do what they want, no harm no foul, but stop the cultural subversion in its tracks.
That's not double think, though. That's just understanding boundaries.
Yeah but it kind of has the same result, doesn't it? The leftists/global elites are always dishonestly redefining terms to get their way, so why can't we define homosexuality as the evil cultural subversion and just turn a blind eye to the sexual acts? Actually, didn't it work that way for a long time? Homosexual acts were technically illegal but the laws just weren't enforced?
Well, forget about homosexuality for a minute because that's not the issue of tactics we're talking about. You're talking about weaponizing the re-definition of terms.
You don't want to do that because you are ceding control over reality and objectivity itself. Now, the Left always wants to abandon reality and objectivity in favor of ideological pursuit, but it's not ground anyone else should give up. Once you give up on being consistent with definitions, the entire fight becomes a complete abstraction and ideological. At that point, the Left can outflank you from any position they want, arguing one hyper-reality against another.
Only sometimes. This is a major problem when it comes to the concept of the state as a moral enforcer. Infamously, Alan Turing was chemically castrated (which eventually lead to his suicide) for a consensual relationship. While it is odd for a 39 year old and a 19 year old to be in a relationship, we'd still be tolerant of a heterosexual relationship at that age, even if it was uncouth, it wouldn't be illegal, let alone justify castration. The pressure on British homosexuals was severe enough that they invented a kind of internal language.
Moralists will refuse to address the cause of the moral violations, and will instead just keep using the police to punish violators, without ever fixing the underlying social failing. If Christian moralists hadn't been relying on the state to solve all their moral problems for the past 70 years, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. You want to have some kind of social enforcement to keep things clean, and keep things from spiraling. This is why a local community would know who a local homosexual was, but wouldn't prosecute him, because he was one of their community members who was just needed to be taken care of (like the local hobo or hermit). I get that that is closer to what you're going for, but it doesn't work either.
Keeping gay relationships as a segregated part of society was workable, but wasn't necessarily a good idea as it drove all gays underground into a level of even more severe degeneracy than what we see. It may not be a Christian ethic, but homosexual marriage has probably done more good for gay men than anything else, providing them with something close to a healthy monogamous relationship. You don't really want to just ignore it, otherwise you get what led up to Stonewall. The gay activists don't like to talk about why there was a police crackdown on Stonewall, just that there was. Truth is, since homosexuality was illegal, the mob took advantage of the demand for a homosexual social place, and created an illegal gay bar. Already, that's supporting organized crime. Worse, because the police are being bribed not to look into it, it's spreading corruption. Then on top of that, since it's effectively lawless, bad shit's starting to happen like rapes and sexual batteries that go unreported, and the felons go unrepentant. The degeneracy actually starts to go hog wild because anonymity starts to get involved: glory holes, dark rooms (orgies where no one can see each other), and so on and so forth. Then disease starts to spread. But it keeps getting worse, and gay prostitutes start leaving the Greenwich area (because they don't want to pay off the mob) and start going into neighboring communities. Eventually, the cops end up breaking up a 40 man orgy that was taking place in a meat truck in a nearby grocery store, and the cops decide they have to stop looking the other way. Thus, there is a crackdown. In the raid, they start recording the name of everyone involved, and instead of fines like normal, they're making mass arrests. Which means everyone there is going to lose their jobs, their families, and their friends; all while the place was already effectively lawless to begin with.
It's the perfect storm to get you a riot with a kick line.
Believe or not, what we are seeing now is much the same. Pride parades are effectively lawless and having spiraling degeneracy that feeds off itself. You can't ignore it and segregate it. It has to be integrated into the society and live to specific standards. That's why gay marriage as a secular institution has some value: you don't see monogamous gay men (like Dave Rubin) get caught in a police dragnet at a meat-truck orgy.
I struggle sometimes with whether it's the right move to adopt their weapons (after all, when the dust clears you want a healthy society) but I disagree that it would be ceding control. They're already redefining everything. They already have superiority in the realm of dishonest argument, because they engage in it all the time, and we try not to. But our insistent adherence to reality is one of our major strengths, and it would be risky to give that up.
However, I agree that driving a threat underground runs the risk of it proliferating unchecked. But there's a difficult balance to achieve. Some of what you describe occurring at Stonewall is indeed harmful to a wider society, but society was definitively stronger when homosexuality was segregated. It's when it become 'integrated' that the slippery slope came into full, alarming effect - admittedly at the hands of dishonest activists who wished it so. And really, has gay marriage helped homosexual men so much? Anecdotally, I don't see a great uptick in the amount of healthy, monogamous relationships. It certainly hasn't improved the moral rectitude of the gay community, which seems as degenerate and promiscuous as it ever was, and much more subversive.
Besides, I'm of the firm belief that society needs an underground scene as a sort of pressure valve for the misfits of said society, or even those who resent the growing regimentation of the west - as long as their harmful ways are kept localized to the underground scene. Which is difficult to achieve - like I said, it's a difficult balance.
As to whether we need laws against homosexuality, enforced or otherwise - I was really just playing devil's advocate, and I suppose acknowledging how much better things seemed to work in the semi-recent past, when 'unofficial tolerance' was the way. But I think removing propaganda and anti-speech cabals alone would put us in a much better position to keep the sickness in check. In truth, I legitimately do not care what gay people do to each other so long as they're not messing with kids or spreading disease to a wider society.
But thank you for the engaging and informative reply.
The socio-economic impact of 2 monogamous gay men getting together is staggering. Men benefit wildly from marriage, they cut costs, maintain each other's health and fitness (physically & emotionally), and both will continue to work and try to gain status, meaning they both seek high income careers, and never have kids (so less expense). If you're gay and marry your partner, you're basically set. They out-preform every other group.
Key word: monogamous. That's the problem. Gay men are rarely monogamous. If they can keep it in their pants, they'll be fine. But... being dudes, that like to fuck dudes, that's a tall fucking order. Once they start fucking other dudes, you start to involve drama, emotional instability, social instability, and everything can go to hell in a hand-basket.
It doesn't work the same for homosexual women. Lesbian relationships are shockingly bad. High rates of domestic violence, and basically no career advancement. They basically just end up in trailer parks. Women... frankly, even lesbians, need men. It's kinda sad.
As for the "gay community", ti's not gay anymore. It's the LGBTQ2SIA+ community, and gays are actively abandoning it. It's weird for a gay man to say "I'm leaving the gay community", but the Queers are so fucking toxic and insane that they're actually causing that to happen. They are causing gays (whom would have normally self-segregated from society into gay communities), to integrate into wider society because a Queer is just that awful.
This is why social enforcement is important. You want to have "enforced monogamy", as in: to socially re-enforce monogamous relationships. You don't want socialist re-distribution of virgins, nor do you want shotgun weddings of people who hate each other. Or in the case of the French: a culture that is very permissive of infidelity because of the inflexible rules on marriage.
You want to socially reinforce heterosexuality. You don't want to support people in "experimenting" with their sexuality and fucking up their sex lives with fetishes and porn, making them incapable of having deep romantic feelings with the opposite sex. Homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) is going to kind of destroy the restrictiveness on sex that women naturally place on it.
Using government violence isn't going to solve any of the social issues that creep up from the internal problems in society; and importantly: most of the degeneracies that we see now are the result of incentivization, not even permissiveness. Removing the demands for degeneracy would be 70% of the work done, and most people would revert to a normal state. No society has 30% homosexuals. That's just fiction. After 5%, it's all fetishes and grooming. You're not born with it if you're part of that additional 25%.
Thank you :)
I never said that, don't be retarded. I said the Arab world pretends not to be gay while explicitly running apologetics for it.
Islam today is dependent on it, to the point that the guys in sodom and gomorrah would go "dude what the fuck, stop assraping children, you filthy degenerate." Rape, deceit and invasion are what makes them so powerful today.
As their art and imagery reveals, they think a “Muslim” is a pudgy, mildly brown woman who wears a simple headscarf to go with her raised-fist or rainbow flag t-shirt. Cue their surprise when their attempt to gaslight everyone, to include themselves, does not reflect reality.
As we all know, islamic countries have historically been safe havens for sodomites on account of all the beautiful and peaceful PoCs living there. But now, there are Drumpflestiltskin supporters running around, chucking faggots off roofs while chanting "This is MAGA country!". Many such cases. SAD!
Trump is extremely lgbt friendly. He also tried to give blacks enormous handouts. None of this stopped the left from successfully branding him as a turbo bigot.
When someone calls you racist or homophobic, the correct response is to call them a pedophile.
People forget that Trump tried openly bribing black people with 500 billion dollars for dem programs and it didn't budge his share of the black vote at all. They're simply an unreachable bloc for any Republican and trying to specifically target them is completely counterproductive.
I recall the opposite, Trump doubled his share of the black male vote and was the only Republican in a generation to make gains with black people. Even though a lot of the Dem fraud is laundered through inner city black "votes."
The demos that supposedly cost Trump in 2020 were older white people and Gen Z.
In 2004 George W. Bush got 11% of the black vote. Trump got 12% in 2020. It's simply an ethnic bloc that cannot be affected in any meaningful way by any Republican candidate.
So what's Trump's comparison to more recent Republican candidates?
A hobo has shat in a SF street: Why Trump is responsible.
Clearly, time-travelin’ Trump is to blame.
Yea because it’s not like the Koran condemns it or anything
Koran... That sounds like "Karen"! Which is a term Drumpftards use! Checkmate!
Muslims have been hanging, burning and chucking teh gheys off roofs since way back when Trump was registered Democrat and beloved by the left.
They were doing it a thousand years before Trump was born.
Didn’t our side spend the entire Woke Era to date telling lefties that the alleged alliance between Muslims and queers within the wider “oppressed” mass was tenuous at best? I guess sometimes the 800 pound gorilla in the room decides to get up and do 800-pound gorilla type things.