It's easy to find copious amounts of negative crap about any and all religions, just as it's easy to find copious examples of individuals and groups proving how fucked up they are. And if you look for it you can also find endless hope or doom, as you like.
Look, the mudslides who are tolerant of faggots are not real mudslides. It's a moderate version of the religion that cannot withstand the influence of modernity. And at that point you might as well not have Islam. We can all see how little is left of the influence of Christianity where the cuckernint can dictate whether or not you can worship when there's a virus. It's as 1984 predicted, the cuckernint is the new God.
Look, the Larrys who spell their name different are not real Larrys.
By your logic, all Christians who are not Greek Orthodox (or whichever sect you chose, but only one narrow definition) are not real Christians.
Label them all you want, it's your right - but you don't get to be the authority on what people identify as, tolerate, adapt to, reject, etc., whether it passes the sniff test or not.
The religion of peace, supposedly. Let's do the numbers:
There are approximately 2 billion Muslims in the world. In the past few years, the number of deaths caused by Muslims is: 1000 +/-
The current Israel government doesn't like Muslims. There are 7.4 million Jews in Israel, an 16 million in the world. 90% of Jews support Israel. The number of people killed by Israel in Gaza, alone, is estimated to be 100,000 +/-
And the number of people killed in Iraq by so-called Christian-majority nations - because of WMD disinformation from Israel - is between 500,000 and 1,000,000.
So by comparing religions, Islam is indeed a more peaceful religion. Is Islam tolerant? Not necessarily.
It's taboo and they enjoy annoying people but if they're tolerated it's not taboo so then it's no fun. So they try to gin up hate by being even more annoying. You see the same principle with trolls online making lame jokes and trying to be annoying.
The paper finds a null effect. There is no correlation between acceptance and psychiatric disorder rates: non-heterosexuals are not better off in more tolerant countries, which is the opposite of what the minority stress hypothesis would predict. Not only is there no relationship globally, there is none on the regional level either. You could think that maybe within Europe, where all countries are reasonably tolerant, additional tolerance has no benefit: but there is no relationship in Africa or Asia either (not a lot of data though). The only significant relationship is within North America, where increased tolerance predicts higher rates of depression, at p<0.001 no less – at face value, this would suggest that increased tolerance makes non-heterosexuals worse off.
Seems the author sees a paradox because the author believes this:
"The explanation of this paradox is most likely that minority stress theory is false, and poor mental health in non-heterosexuals is not caused by intolerance." And this:
"Another possible explanation is that non-heterosexuality causes poor mental health, except not by exposing you to intolerance, but by exposing you to some other bad thing." And this:
"Paradoxically, both different lifeways and narrative possibilities can be worse in more tolerant countries where you are more free to openly live as a gay person and more exposed to narratives of victimhood."
All of this is news to me. If for example a 'non-heterosexual' is in an intolerant country and gets accused of naughty acts and faces the death penalty, life imprisonment, chemical castration, or all three, I'd argue that the non-heterosexual did not do better in the intolerant country.
The author goes on to speculate that the bad thing could be:
“Different lifeways”: if you are non-heterosexual, you are automatically a statistical minority and can’t have a biological child with a person you love, plus there are statistical realities like that non-heterosexuals live farther from their families and that LGBT subcultures can be particularly toxic (“intraminority stress”). All of these can generate depression and anxiety but none of them can be fixed by more tolerance. “Narrative possibilities”: your identity is based on narratives about who you are. If this narrative is that you are a frail, sickly victim, then you may identify with this story and feel this way yourself. Because so many stories about non-heterosexual identity are about illness and discrimination, it’s easy to imagine that members of this community identify with these and instead of seeing themselves as normal people with a statistically rare sexual preference they start to believe that they are eternal victims of a cruel society always just one step away from AIDS or suicide. Paradoxically, both different lifeways and narrative possibilities can be worse in more tolerant countries where you are more free to openly live as a gay person and more exposed to narratives of victimhood.
I added this to the post whenever queue so long ago that I forgot about it. There's another link I added to post whenever even longer ago and I don't remember what that was about either, just that I did it. So that's interesting!
Log in
How tolerant is Islam?
How much (((propaganda))) have you swallowed since (((9-11)))?
https://www.nationthailand.com/life/30294836
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_the_Islamic_State
It's easy to find copious amounts of negative crap about any and all religions, just as it's easy to find copious examples of individuals and groups proving how fucked up they are. And if you look for it you can also find endless hope or doom, as you like.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
What's left?
You can punch down or sideways at folks as fucked as you if not worse.
Or you can see past the political theatre and psyops to the higher levers of power's plans and resist local tyranny with friends and allies.
Maybe you never read the Koran? https://myislam.org/quran-verses/homosexuality/
I have a Quran.
I also have MANY religious and philosophical books.
The King James Bible has a lot of evil shit in it too.
Look, the mudslides who are tolerant of faggots are not real mudslides. It's a moderate version of the religion that cannot withstand the influence of modernity. And at that point you might as well not have Islam. We can all see how little is left of the influence of Christianity where the cuckernint can dictate whether or not you can worship when there's a virus. It's as 1984 predicted, the cuckernint is the new God.
Look, the Larrys who spell their name different are not real Larrys.
By your logic, all Christians who are not Greek Orthodox (or whichever sect you chose, but only one narrow definition) are not real Christians.
Label them all you want, it's your right - but you don't get to be the authority on what people identify as, tolerate, adapt to, reject, etc., whether it passes the sniff test or not.
All religions are psyops.
Fictional gods: Zeus, Ra, Thor, Hanuman, Buddha, Raven, Satan, Lucifer, Moloch, Baal, Yahweh, Jehovah, Government, Money, Hawking, Grok, God.
If you still have faith, then you are an atheist of all the world's religions that have ever existed - except one.
Just one more to go.
The religion of peace, supposedly. Let's do the numbers:
There are approximately 2 billion Muslims in the world. In the past few years, the number of deaths caused by Muslims is: 1000 +/-
The current Israel government doesn't like Muslims. There are 7.4 million Jews in Israel, an 16 million in the world. 90% of Jews support Israel. The number of people killed by Israel in Gaza, alone, is estimated to be 100,000 +/-
And the number of people killed in Iraq by so-called Christian-majority nations - because of WMD disinformation from Israel - is between 500,000 and 1,000,000.
So by comparing religions, Islam is indeed a more peaceful religion. Is Islam tolerant? Not necessarily.
Judaeo-Christian values don't value life.
Not even babies, because they're future "terrorists".
It's taboo and they enjoy annoying people but if they're tolerated it's not taboo so then it's no fun. So they try to gin up hate by being even more annoying. You see the same principle with trolls online making lame jokes and trying to be annoying.
I'd guess it would depend how flaming they are to how much they pass as normal.
Stand out and get hammered down, for better and/or worse.
Yes? Here's a paper on the matter: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616696.2016.1207793
Seems the author sees a paradox because the author believes this:
"The explanation of this paradox is most likely that minority stress theory is false, and poor mental health in non-heterosexuals is not caused by intolerance." And this:
"Another possible explanation is that non-heterosexuality causes poor mental health, except not by exposing you to intolerance, but by exposing you to some other bad thing." And this:
"Paradoxically, both different lifeways and narrative possibilities can be worse in more tolerant countries where you are more free to openly live as a gay person and more exposed to narratives of victimhood."
All of this is news to me. If for example a 'non-heterosexual' is in an intolerant country and gets accused of naughty acts and faces the death penalty, life imprisonment, chemical castration, or all three, I'd argue that the non-heterosexual did not do better in the intolerant country.
Another theory could be they get more stds and that affects the brain. Maybe that's the bad things he mentions.
The author goes on to speculate that the bad thing could be:
A lot of that just seems like mental illness and I still think stds especially herpes causes insanity.
I added this to the post whenever queue so long ago that I forgot about it. There's another link I added to post whenever even longer ago and I don't remember what that was about either, just that I did it. So that's interesting!