How do we stop the use of buzzwords like islamophobia and homophobia They imply people are irrationally afraid but besides the fact that the use of the word automatically makes a judgment, a lot of people aren't afraid they're just against it. Anti should be used instead.
>>74272261
amen brother, this thing drives me mad too, it's on par with "antisemitism" implying most kikes are semite to begin with, or that they are the only semite people in the world.
>>74272261
>How do we stop the use of buzzwords like islamophobia and homophobia?
By using words like anti-faggot or anti-terrorists.
But faggotts that read blogs get triggered and scared by such words, and if jew publications want people to click on their click bait and get revenue, they need to use sugar coated words that use the word "phobia"
>>74272261
but what about russophobia
it is very real!
It's a catch all phrase to demonize opposition to XYZ. For example, I am against Gay Marriage. But do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals? No. It's easy for the Liberal to then say that I am fearful of an entire group of people and use it against me rather than address my reasoning.
>>74273294
I am a liberal who agrees with your reasoning and acknowledges the rights churches have not to want gay marriages held in them.
Marriage by bureaucracy should be enough, marriages for most people are for the practical reasons anyway.
Speaking of catch-all phrases... ;)
If they control what we can say, they control what we can think. Don't let them!
>>74272709
This is true, yet "Antisemite" is effective because in one sense it is absolutely true.
It's indeed the Semite in them that is aggressive, arrogant, vulgar, demanding, megalomaniacal and obnoxious, just like their cousins the Arabs.
And yeah, any "-phobia" basically has a built-in Freudian diagnosis. Just the typical Jewish strategy of psychopathologizing anyone opposed to their agenda.
>>74273948
I disagree. Marriage regulation is necessary since it allows the state to keep track of couples for legal purposes, financial incentives, and grow the population. If people were polyamorous, there would be no effective way at keeping track of family structures and ownership of property held by individuals in those relationships (or it would be difficult). It is a financial incentive because it gives tax breaks to married heterosexual couples so that they can reproduce. Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce. Now of course some heterosexuals can't either, but they are negligible minority. For an analogy to help better represent my reasoning, I ask you this, if an apple has a worm in it, does that change what the apple is in principle?
>>74274382
To add, because of the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce (thus give back to the state), they should not be allowed legal marriage.
I ask myself this question everyday anon
>>74272261
>Be Russian
>Go to any russian news site
>See comments
>Everything is littered with shills screaming "Russophobia! Russophobia! Waaaaah! Fucking western russophobes! "
You guys will never understand how embarrasing it is when your nation's "arguments" to justify its actions is literally faggot excuses.
>>74275116
mummy says you need to cheer up
