How gays sound like

[pood]

A simple Google search shows that yes, there is a stereotypical “gay voice” among SOME gay men that appears to be a learned cultural token. And? So what and who cares?

 

[steve_bank]

Z

I'm just keeping the ping pong ball going.

You make statements like all Muslims have always hated Jews. More of a media stereotype. Maybe based in Israeli propaganda.

Mohamed refereed to Jews as the people of the book. He saw himself as the last Abraham prophet.

Modern Muslims will at times discriminate between Jews and Zionist Jews, IOW Israel. No problems with Jews in general, problems with Israel over land.

May I suggest you read books not watch videos. Back in the 90s I read three histories of Islam, one given to me by a Muslim I worked with. Interesting guy. He and several other Muslims had an informal support group,. They would pool their money and find people who needed help.

I read the Quran in 80s, given to m e by a Muslim I knew.

My poor vision makes it hard to read books these days.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Z

I'm just keeping the ping pong ball going.

You make statements like all Muslims have always hated Jews. More of a media stereotype. Maybe based in Israeli propaganda.

No I didn't.

But back to more important things. I'm not going to let you squirm out of explaining why you think its shameful to sound gay. I'm not going to just let this slide.

You have managed to dig yourself into a homophobic hole. Lets see you dig yourself out

Go ahead. I'm listening

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No, it does match up. But, as very often happens when the underlying pattern is not understood people overfit the rules to the pattern and they fail on other cases. We see the same thing in the 10 commandments--some simple rules for judging interactions with others. I suspect there are other cases but I'm not aware of them.

We know to (and have the ability to) cook pork properly so eating pigs is no longer a danger--but pigs remain a source of zoonotic infection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The fundies of any religion are a problem.

It's just Iran is using it as a means to power, making things much worse than just the fundies.

 

[bilby]

We know to (and have the ability to) cook pork properly so eating pigs is no longer a danger--but pigs remain a source of zoonotic infection.

WE know. Because we live in the twenty-first century. THEY did NOT. Eating pork was not - could not have been - prohibited on health grounds; No such grounds were known of at the time.

Before the nineteenth century CE, the cause of disease was unknown. Nobody made a connection between pork consumption and diseases, which is a difficult connection to spot without rigorous post-enlightenment techniques.

There is zero chance that the rabbis who came up with the prohibition on pork had any inkling that there was a possible link to illness.

It's pure presentism. You know and I know that there is a link; They did not and could not. Nobody was doing the detailed statistical analysis that would have been required to show a link, and even when people finally did that analysis (in the 1800s CE), it took a huge effort to persuade the authorities and the public at large that the link was real.

The (much stronger and more obvious) link between disease and poor hygiene wasn't made by these rabbis. It would have been easy to include commandments about the siting and depth of latrines, but none were included - because the germ theory of disease was millennia in the future, and nobody knew these things to be important. As long as the drinking water didn't actually stink, that was (wrongly) believed to be good enough.

The very idea that the prohibition on pork for Jews (and Muslims) was based on an understanding of the cause of disease is a hugely popular modern invention; And it is utter nonsense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We know to (and have the ability to) cook pork properly so eating pigs is no longer a danger--but pigs remain a source of zoonotic infection.

WE know. Because we live in the twenty-first century. THEY did NOT. Eating pork was not - could not have been - prohibited on health grounds; No such grounds were known of at the time.

Before the nineteenth century CE, the cause of disease was unknown. Nobody made a connection between pork consumption and diseases, which is a difficult connection to spot without rigorous post-enlightenment techniques.

There is zero chance that the rabbis who came up with the prohibition on pork had any inkling that there was a possible link to illness.

Why do you think it's impossible for them to have noticed the association without knowing why?

 

[steve_bank]

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.

The fundies of any religion are a problem.

It's just Iran is using it as a means to power, making things much worse than just the fundies.

In this country orthodox Jews keep to their community, do not proselytize, and do not bother anybody.

Yet Jews in general have always been a target for violence..

Right now the extreme right in Israel is in control. IMO just as crazy as the Muslim extremists.

Maybe a thread on 'how Jews sound like', or i Irish sound lke....

 

[bilby]

We know to (and have the ability to) cook pork properly so eating pigs is no longer a danger--but pigs remain a source of zoonotic infection.

WE know. Because we live in the twenty-first century. THEY did NOT. Eating pork was not - could not have been - prohibited on health grounds; No such grounds were known of at the time.

Before the nineteenth century CE, the cause of disease was unknown. Nobody made a connection between pork consumption and diseases, which is a difficult connection to spot without rigorous post-enlightenment techniques.

There is zero chance that the rabbis who came up with the prohibition on pork had any inkling that there was a possible link to illness.

Why do you think it's impossible for them to have noticed the association without knowing why?

Because it's very very far from obvious; It is buried in the noise.

And they told us so - they thought illness was god's wrath, and even where its cause was most obvious, as in highly contagious disease, where falling ill is a consequence of direct contact with those who are already ill, they largely missed the link, and completely missed the cause.

Plagues, we are told, were sent by god to punish sinners. The very idea that "we are all sinners" comes in no small part from the observation that everyone suffers regular sickness, and that even the most apparently pious and godly of men might suddenly die of some disease.

The idea that one might look at a pre-eightenment society and notice (without doing a statistical analysis using mathematical tools not yet invented) that pork consumption leads to an uptick in illness, is completely crazy. The signal is buried in an avalanche of noise, and even when it was finally unpicked, people generally didn't believe it.

Please feel free to prove me wrong by finding any source prior to 1800 CE that says that religious dietary laws were founded in, or even vaguely related to, concerns about disease, illness, or parasite infestation.

This entire idea is a retcon by those who wanted god to be all-knowing, in a world where suddenly the great mystery about why some folks got sick while others did not, had been solved.

It comes from the late C18th CE.

Why didn't an all-knowing god tell us about this (newly uncovered) risk? Well, he must have, but we never noticed - aha! Perhaps his dietary laws were his way of trying to keep us safe! (Don't ask why he prohibited pork, but didn't tell us to wash our hands before delivering a baby).

 

[steve_bank]

It would be interesting if DrZ would post an audio file of his speaking so we could hear how he sounds.

 

[Elixir]

Why didn't an all-knowing god tell us about this (newly uncovered) risk?

It’s like the tobacco business, and god doesn’t want the criticism of his product.
At least that’s the excuse, usually.

At the end of the day though, it comes down to the fact that smiting is just plain fun. Telling the chumps what causes illness, is giving them forbidden fruit from the Tree of Nollidge.

The Supreme being loves the uneducated, bless his little black heart.

 

[brewer]

Hollywood plays a part of this, either by imitating or exaggerating gay tropes. TV was probably the first place I learned about 'homosexual'.

 

[steve_bank]

In the 1960s Italians protested stereotyping Italians as gangsters in movies and TV. I think it affected the making of The Godfather

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hollywood plays a part of this, either by imitating or exaggerating gay tropes. TV was probably the first place I learned about 'homosexual'.

Overtly gay characters go as far back as theatre itself, and novels. Not sounding gay was a major hang up for the ancient Greeks and Romans. Caligula was according to Seutonius, (his only biographer) mudered by his bodyguard, Cassius Chaerea, for saying that he sounded gay.

I think its probably the case that overtly gay characters are less prevalent on stage and litterature the more homosexuality is accepted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would be interesting if DrZ would post an audio file of his speaking so we could hear how he sounds.

Why? You seem to think talking about this is an attack on gays. That's bizarre. You seem to think its shameful to sound gay. That's homophobic.

I think its perfectly fine to sound gay. I don't have a hang up about what voice people have. But you seem to.

You obviously have an issue about this. Your reaction in this thread has been very strange. I've clearly triggered some insecurity in you. Perhaps talk to a therapist about it?

 

[steve_bank]

My guess is DrZ sounds like an agitated squirrel, and a gay squirrel at that.

The question is how much of it is nature and how much is nurture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My guess is DrZ sounds like an agitated squirrel, and a gay squirrel at that.

Using gay as an insult is homophobic. Can you please stop with the homophobia. I think its against forum rules?

I think we've manage to establish that you are homophobic in this thread.

Since you hate gays, then wtf has your problem been? I can't figure out what side you are on?

Your behaviour in this thread has been very confusing.

The question is how much of it is nature and how much is nurture.

Sure

 

[steve_bank]

Perhaps I am too subtle for you. No insult intended.

I was poking at your focus on gay specach, along with your rants against lesbians taking the L out of LGBTQ. To me you sound like some issues with gays, which is whay I asked you if you support gay rights. You wounld not answer. That makes me suspicious. You are probably someone I would not trust.

Actually I do go in part by how someone sounds, not sounding 'gay' or anything like that.Vocal inflection , hand gestures, facial expressions. Eye movent. An assessment if I can trust somebody and take them at face value.

As I said I have never been deep into gay culture. Gays I have known do not sound any different than anyone else.

When I walk through Capitol Hill in Seattle I do here different volices

A trans woman moved into my building. We exchanged names and had a conversation. I have no issues with LGBTQ and how they 'talk'....

It is all spice for the gumbo.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps I am too subtle for you. No insult intended.

You're about as subtle as a bull in a china shop.

Let's recap. You misunderstood my reason for creating this thread. You then projected a bunch of nonsense onto me. You still aren't man enough to admit you fucked up. Instead you just keep going.

At any point you could just say, "my bad. I misunderstood. Sorry".

I was poking at your focus on gay specach,

I saw an interesting video, (I think) where gays talk about why gays sometimes sound the way they do. There's nothing homophobic about that. I think its gay friendly. It's acknowledging a feature of homosexuality. I'm not shaming gays for talking the way they do, (if they talk like that). I'm super cool with people not fitting into the norm. I'm super liberal and super tolerant.

Giving attention to people who fall outside the norm, I think is a good thing. Denying the existence of non-normative behaviour among gays, because it makes you feel uncomforatble, is not being gay friendly. It's homophobic.

along with your rants against lesbians taking the L out of LGBTQ.

Rant? I was describing a recent trend among Scandinavian lesbians. I wasn't taking a side. I wasn't criticising it. I mentioned it because I am privy to information those outside the queer scene might not be. As I recall, you were having a go at lesbians for doing this, and I defended them. I don't want to force anyone to do anything. Like I said... I'm a liberal. Lesbians shouldn't be forced to socialise with anyone they don't want to. But that's just me.

The only one who's "ranted" against lesbians is you. You're the one upset about lesbians chosing who they should spend their free time with.

To me you sound like some issues with gays, which is whay I asked you if you support gay rights. You wounld not answer. That makes me suspicious. You are probably someone I would not trust.

Look, you're the only homophobe in this thread. I think we've established that beyond a doubt. I don't give a fuck about what homophobes think about anything, and I certainly don't give a fuck if a homophobe is suspicious about stuff. Please get help from a therapist with whatever your problem is.

Actually I do go in part by how someone sounds, not sounding 'gay' or anything like that.Vocal inflection , hand gestures, facial expressions. Eye movent. An assessment if I can trust somebody and take them at face value.

As I said I have never been deep into gay culture. Gays I have known do not sound any different than anyone else.

What a surprise that a homophobe has been avoiding mixing with gays.

When I walk through Capitol Hill in Seattle I do here different volices

A trans woman moved into my building. We exchanged names and had a conversation.

I really don't believe you're ok with being neighbours with a trans woman. You don't seem to be the type.

I have no issues with LGBTQ and how they 'talk'....

It is all spice for the gumbo.

You're already said you think it's shameful to sound gay. You have issues with people sounding gay. It's a bit late denying it now.