Neptium

Oh boy I thought I would cool it with the controversial LGBT stuff on this site but my country was pulled into the Western culture war this time (making my blood boil as per usual).

The British band The 1975 decided to do a stunt where 2 male band members kissed on stage. Which was proceeded by a rant and behaviours that was very liberal, only could be done by someone who grew up in a hyper-capitalist and alienated society in which individualism festers like a plague.

Needless to say, but this sort of "activism" doesn't work. That's obvious enough.

Then the liberals that consume too much American media (or lives in America) comes out of the woodwork bashing the government for over-exaggerating, and/or praising this pathetic attempt at lecturing the barbarians for their bad values. Liberals really showcase remarkable cynicism and hatred of the masses.

The sheer chauvinism in which you come into another country as a guest to perform and then lambast government policy in which you yourself are not affected by and in which you agreed to beforehand, while at the same time breaking many social norms - well that takes the cake.

Thank you for giving right-wingers ammo to further politicize and police "LGBT" communities in this country - making it worse for everyone here by enflaming the already vicious identity politics prevalent here (referring to the local identity politics - not commenting on the American one).

Good job, colonizer. I see that the Brits still think that anyone cares about what they have to say.

The coverage by the Rolling Stone and The Independent is as chauvinistic as ever. I'd prefer it if you just called us primatives directly instead of this whole fake concern for human rights.

Atleast Reuters had the decency to mention that:

Friday's incident sparked uproar on Malaysian social media, including among some members of the LGBT community, who accused Healy of "performative activism" and said his action could expose the community to more stigma and discrimination.

but in typical fashion doesn't mention that such behaviours, even if advocating for something the majority of the people agree, is not acceptable. It's a concert, not a political debate. Narcissistic behaviour and dysfunctional interpersonal skills (as determined by our culture and society at large) isn't something that should be promoted. Furthermore, this isn't even mentioning colonial history and ongoing imperialism.

Liberals needs to be sent into re-education camps for decades to deworm their minds from their terminal brain disease.

Alhamdullilah that most people here don't have it and recognised the chauvinism for what it is. (All non-english and many English replies on this tweet for example.)

I know pirating is always an option, and I used to play EU4 completely pirated.

But I got some credit remaining on Steam and they’re on sale right now, so lads, which should I go for?

Background info being I only played EU4 before, and enjoyed the nation-building side more rather than the military strategy. Although I was able to do some WCs back in the day and I do like micromanaging and extending a 20hr campaign into a 100hr one.

I was debating whether to insert this within LGBT+ or Islamic Leftism but I do think ultimately it might fit here better because it covers the specific experience of French indigènes, which makes it more relevant here.

I feel like in these sort of online Islamic “progressive” spaces, there’s no genuine discussions happening. These spaces are often almost defensive in nature - like the existence of this community is just to prove to disapproving whites that Islam isn’t this, or isn’t that. This is a result of being in a Western dominated space in general.

Gender and sexual minorities is a very important phenomenon that must require a response, yet it is almost ignored or never spoken about because this muslim-homophobia dichotomy is so engrained that people are (rightfully) scared to even talk about it, especially across the White left.

I’d of course invite everyone to treat this article critically, and contribute if you have any qualms against their conclusions, although I will admit my opinions have slowly drifted closer to the article as the years went by.

I was reading Socialism's Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism by Ramin Mazaheri, and they mentioned something that has become a common sight here too: Islamic finance.

Iran is leading in Islamic financing, with Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the UAE and Qatar filling the rest of the Top 5 according to this report.

For those who don't know, it's basically finance but with Islamic principles as accorded to the Quran and various Madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence).

Some of it's principles are (quoting Wikipedia), among others:

1. Paying or charging interest. "All forms of interest are riba and hence prohibited". Islamic rules on transactions (known as Fiqh al-Muamalat) have been created to prevent use of interest.
2. Investing in businesses involved in activities that are forbidden (haraam). These include things such as selling alcohol or pork, or producing media such as gossip columns or pornography.
3. Charging extra for late payment. This applies to murâbaḥah or other fixed payment financing transactions, although some authors believe late fees may be charged if they are donated to charity,or if the buyer has "deliberately refused" to make a payment.

Has any comrades read much on this?

How viable do you think is such a financial system, especially now, with renewed interest in de-dollarisation? (see what I did there?)

Can it fully live up to it's socialistic principles in a world capitalist system?

About the multiracial, working class hartal I mentioned before that took place prior to the supposed communist emergency in what was then Malaya.

Set in a feudalistic fictional world, the song espouses a liberal (to use the term a bit anachronistically) feminist form of class collaborationism.

Although both expresses ill-feelings toward the heteronormative patriarchy that they live in, the film tries to make a false equivalence between both of their lives just because of their gender. Erika exhibits false consciousness believing that a princess has the same experiences as her, an indentured servant whose forced to work due to her parent’s debts.

This is clearly shown in the first few lines of the song, where Erika had to manually toil away in hard day’s work to even feed herself and yet brushes it off as being ‘used to it’, while Anneliese (the princess) just ‘has to ring a bell’ to have an omelette delivered to her bed. Erika, being kept ignorant by the ruling class, exclaims that they have the same lives.

To use Frier’s analysis, it can be seen that Anneliese, although still part of the aristocracy, is denied humanity (agency) not only through her gender but also due to her class as shown by the song’s chorus ‘We carry through to do what we need to do’. Showcasing how everyone is oppressed to some extent in class society.

The word must be something non-political that is in everyday use or in common speech.

For example, in my mother language there's the word muak, which describes the feeling you get after eating the same dish repeatedly, leading to you being sick of it and not wanting to eat that dish anymore.

Tired (ie. tired of eating the same x dish/food) may be the closest word/phrase in the English language that captures the meaning, but not exactly.

Went and dug a little deeper and it seems that for high-income nations, this trend of more women than men graduating in universities (as well as outperforming in school) has been going on for multiple decades now.

Apart of me wants to think its just right-wing hysteria because this was brought to my attention by some random podcast clip using this example as somehow proof that patriarchy doesn't exist lol. Some articles I read did mention how other factors (particularly class and race) was a higher determinant of school/university success.

And I particularly do not like biological explanations anyways (too essentialist to my taste, but I can't say for sure). I forgot which article in particular but it did argue it's because men used to be able find jobs in more traditional blue-collar industries, leading to this present day discrepancy.

What do you all think?