|
| Thread: Propaganda/Expression, LGBT rights, Sovereignty rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted February 10, 2014 05:42 PM |
|
|
Exactly, JJ. The new law is simply a political nod to the overwhelming conservative majority and a move to empower the already firm hold Putin has on the voters. It doesn't - pay attention, Xerox - change the status quo in the least. Things will remain as they always were in Russia - some people are going to be gay, most won't, and no one's going to shake the conservative values of no thongs in the street.
Believe it or not, this is not considered a human rights violation in most of the world.
Homosexuals are not the same as pedophiles, because it's illegal to practice pedophilia, while it's not only legal to be gay, but it's illegal to bother someone because they're gay.
Again, what Russia needs first and foremost is a judicial and police system that is not corrupt, one that can uphold the laws it brings. What people have a problem with is, "they are supporting the hooligans beating gay people!" No, the law explicitly forbids that.
Conservative values will always imply that it is imperative for any man and woman capable of having children, to have children. You cannot ban them from believing that, and you cannot stop that from implying that homosexual relationships, as well as straight out-of-marriage relationships, are wrong.
Rubbing things into the majority's faces does not end well for anybody, not the gays, not the said majority, not anyone except those who would profit from a smear campaign against a country which is neither better nor worse than the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. It's nice and swell that you people believe in libertarian values of people being allowed to do whatever they like in whichever public open spaces, but that's not how things are, even in your own countries.
And yes, Xerox, what private schools can or cannot teach children is regulated everywhere in the world.
No, parading through the street dressed like a pervert is not an acceptable thing in some parts of the world. No, that doesn't equate to totalitarianism, and it's despicable to call for a shytestorm against a country far better than some which you are allied to.
And LGBT activism, while not being a single, unified cell, consists of shyteloads of organizations, of which some - granted - are genuine (with all their rights and wrongs), and some used as a staged provocation of political enemies. If you do not believe that noble causes are regularly used for political purposes... well, I am happy for you, but understand that there are people with less youthful optimism.
By "they", I of course mean the lizard people.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 05:57 PM |
|
|
I read the bible even though I'm not a believer. I was horribly wounded, confused and bored at the time, and a priest dropped a bible in my hand to kill the time, thinking I would become a believer to deal with the pain I had at that time.
Well, I didnt read the history and psalms part, but I did read the old and new testament.
What I want to say is... while the bible does have some statements that are anti gay, I do not think the bible hates gays and that most people that focus on gay people as a problem simply got it wrong.
The anti gay statements in the bible are very rare. They are not followed by some explication after, it just pass on to some other subject. If we put the quantity of anti gay words versus the quantity of words in the bible , we re talking about 0.00xxx something percent that is anti gay. Not only that, but there are other things in the bible, like the guy that is squashed by god's finger after he unloads his sperm on the floor instead of in his wife or that other part where you re supposed to have 9 childrens like the 9 arrows of a quiver or where parent have more rights than childless adults, etc etc... when we mix the gay subject with the rest, it really seems like the people that wrote the bible really just wanted humans to have kids and saw gay people like people not doing their primary job, so to speak.
Now, when we put this in the context, in today s world, we can count the humans by the billions, not millions, so really, this whole anti gay conservative ideology is wrong, but if you dont like the word wrong, we can surely settle with "outdated".
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 06:21 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:23, 10 Feb 2014.
|
Baklava said:
Exactly, JJ. The new law is simply a political nod to the overwhelming conservative majority and a move to empower the already firm hold Putin has on the voters. It doesn't - pay attention, Xerox - change the status quo in the least. Things will remain as they always were in Russia - some people are going to be gay, most won't, and no one's going to shake the conservative values of no thongs in the street.
Why should I pay attention there?
I specifically wrote it was a political move to appease the conservative public. I also specifically wrote I don't think gay pride parades are a good way of making them less conservative.
Quote:
Believe it or not, this is not considered a human rights violation in most of the world.
Infringing on freedom of speech is widely considered a violation of human rights. Not being able to organise a pride parade, despite getting permission by the street owner, is totalitarian. Though I think it's wrong, I can accept parades not being permitted on public streets. What I can not accept is restricting people from talking publically about "non-traditional marriages" and such.
Quote:
Again, what Russia needs first and foremost is a judicial and police system that is not corrupt, one that can uphold the laws it brings. What people have a problem with is, "they are supporting the hooligans beating gay people!" No, the law explicitly forbids that.
We are talking about a lot of different things here. Various of laws, the general attitude towards LGBTQ in Russia etc. Nobody has said there is a law making it legal to beat gays up. That's just a bad strawman. However, there are reports from Russia about LGBTQ people being abused and not getting any help from the police due to the overall, negative attitude towards them that exists in Russia.
Quote:
Conservative values will always imply that it is imperative for any man and woman capable of having children, to have children. You cannot ban them from believing that, and you cannot stop that from implying that homosexual relationships, as well as straight out-of-marriage relationships, are wrong.
More strawmen. Who has ever argued for banning people from valuing reproduction? Who has ever argued from banning people from thinking gay marriage is wrong? Nobody here is saying that. What is being said is that all people, no matter how progressive or conservative they are, should have equal rights to freedom of speech.
Quote:
It's nice and swell that you people believe in libertarian values of people being allowed to do whatever they like in whichever public open spaces, but that's not how things are, even in your own countries.
It is legitimate for politicans in a state democracy to put restrictions on the public places that they own. Like I am not supposed to run around naked or even drink alcohol in public places. But pretty much only more or less authoritarian regimes have restrictions on free speech in public places.
Quote:
And yes, Xerox, what private schools can or cannot teach children is regulated everywhere in the world.
No, parading through the street dressed like a pervert is not an acceptable thing in some parts of the world. No, that doesn't equate to totalitarianism, and it's despicable to call for a shytestorm against a country far better than some which you are allied to.
I'm not saying private schools are unregulated when it comes to what the state tells them to do or not do. I'm saying they should be and i'm saying that public schools should pursue critical thinking instead of saying what's right or wrong when there's not an objective answer. Also I am not allied to any country nor do I decide which countries the state I live in allies with.
Quote:
And LGBT activism, while not being a single, unified cell, consists of shyteloads of organizations, of which some - granted - are genuine (with all their rights and wrongs), and some used as a staged provocation of political enemies. If you do not believe that noble causes are regularly used for political purposes... well, I am happy for you, but understand that there are people with less youthful optimism.
Noble causes are frequently used for political purposes. What's wrong with that? I have a lot of political purposes that correlate with what I perceive to be noble causes. One is changing the negative attitude towards LGBTQ people to protect equal, individual rights and make more of them feel accepted in society.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 06:24 PM |
|
|
Speaking of which, with that now in place, does Russia permits gay people to have kids? Adopted or otherwise? I mean, the law is there to not "promote unusual sexual pratices toward childrens" , so ........ ?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 06:28 PM |
|
|
Bak, I know, it's a kind of club argument, but 80 years ago the same points were made against critisicm of the Nazi regime. 50 years ago everything was fine with racial segregation in the US.
It's also naive to support on one hand a law that's creating a distinct inequality, while on the other claiming that gays are actually protected by the law. I guess, you could call that nypocrisy; people that are treated as inferiors by the law are IN PRACTISE open for all kind of mistreatment, that's something which you can see everywhere in the world.
It's also pretty beside the point whether there may be ultzerior motives behind that, whether it's just a tactical meneuver or something; if so - all the worse. Minorities are no pawns in the power politivs of populist unsxrupulos politicians.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 06:37 PM |
|
|
Bak:
I'm going to state this as clearly as I can. The United States government is evil. The Russian government is evil. The Saudi government is evil. Governments that are even more totalitarian (North Korea) are evil. But the fact that the Western media and the US government are hypocritical doesn't mean that they're wrong in pointing out that Putin is doing something wrong. Just because Putin's government and the United States are opposed to each other, that doesn't mean that the US is wrong to call Putin authoritarian.
Regarding the "there are a lot of gays, I'd better be careful" point, I don't mean that hooligans would fear violence from gays, I mean that normal casual homophobes would be more reluctant to insult a group if they knew that it had more people than they thought, because it's easier to insult one weak person than a large group, members of which may be around you without you knowing.
Also, "rubbing it in people's faces" - historically, polite movements didn't accomplish much. Remember that blacks marched on Washington before they got full civil rights de jure. Suffragettes protested too. Now it's LGBT people's turn.
As for Obama taking selfies at Mandela's funeral - who cares? It's the 21st century, we should be past that kind of outrage at mere violation of protocol.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 07:14 PM |
|
|
|
Well I'm not fully aware of the whole gay situation in Russia, but this law seems to set a dangerous precedent for future anti gay use. Like revoking gay parent's rights ( if they have any already ), since this law is about "protecting kids from gay influences".
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 08:16 PM |
|
|
|
How about we skip the conveyor libertarian nonsense of mvass and xerox and the shallow black-and-white thinking promoted as "morals" and actually try to see behind the whole "gay issue" in Russia? You really think that Obama loses his sleep because Putin doesn't advertise public homo events? Or that Putin will shed a tear that someone puts a blame that he doesn't give a rat's arse about on him? Really now, you can do better than that. Here's a hint: nobody from the involved parties cares about gay rights, human rights or any rights.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2014 08:53 PM |
|
|
They probably don't care, but that's not the question. The question is whether what Putin's government is doing is right. And that's a moral question.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 06:56 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 19:01, 11 Feb 2014.
|
Xerox:
I read your entire post, but I'm not a quote wars man and haven't engaged in the silly activity for a few years. All your points are very easily answered to, though, so if you'd like to practice some debating, you can make this a wonderful mental workout by replying to your own quotes.
Most are going in circles, so you can save time by quoting quotes to answer to quotes, for instance:
Quote:
Why should I pay attention there?
Quote:
No, because Saudi Arabia didn't recently regress.
Do you find it strange that people are more likely to protest against an active, negative change rather than something that has sucked forever? It's better to prioritise things that are changing than things that seem more or less static.
JJ:
I can't believe you just pulled a Hitler on me. I thought we were friends.
Neither the Nazi regime nor racial segregation had support as wide as the belief that gay pride should not be held; the problem here is that most people do not equate disapproval of gay pride with homophobia, and most of those are not vile racists as you people like to think of them (successful dehumanization of the enemy was always the essence of manpower morale in any war - cold or not, physical or political), but conservatives that would simply like the sexual preference issue to be a matter of the bedroom. They cannot be equated with supporters of the national-socialist party, nor the Ku Klux Klan, and it's hypocritical for a public official to do that when they cultivate great relations with Saudi sheikhs etc.
MVass:
Non-violent civil movements without wide enough public support would not be well advised to march anywhere, especially in regimes that are firmly against it.
I never called Putin non-authoritarian. He's certainly far from a libertarian ruler. Whether that is, everything taken into account, beneficial or harmful for Russia as a whole (and to what extent), I'm not sure. It's certainly better than Yeltsin. But that's all beside the point right now.
Obama's selfies are not just a violation of protocol. After taking a poke at authoritarian rulers that have come to honour the dead, Obama, the man who got a Nobel peace prize and agreed to sign the bombing of Libya and arming Syrian rebels, was making a mockery of an important event, closely tied to his own supposed ideals, and that of the people he governs. Besides, I'm surprised you don't understand the importance of protocol in international diplomacy on the highest level.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 07:34 PM |
|
|
Whether it's wise for them to march is an entirely separate question from whether they should be allowed to march. We agree (I hope) that I should be allowed to spend my entire paycheck on toothpicks, and also that it would be unwise for me to do so. So it is with marching - it may be unwise for them to march in the face of so much opposition (and bad PR besides, though again I'm not sure of that), but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to march. Every group whose rights are recognized now, with the exceptions of royalty and nobility, has had to get them in the face of opposition.
If Putin is authoritarian, of course that's bad. That goes without saying.
As for selfies, taking them isn't "making a mockery" of anything. They're just selfies, there's no need to be so attached to social norms.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 07:48 PM |
|
|
|
The desire for gay people to march was born out of centuries of abuse ; had we treated them like equals since the start, we wouldn't be stuck with gay parades in the first place.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 07:55 PM |
|
|
Baklava said:
[
JJ:
I can't believe you just pulled a Hitler on me. I thought we were friends.
Neither the Nazi regime nor racial segregation had support as wide as the belief that gay pride should not be held; the problem here is that most people do not equate disapproval of gay pride with homophobia, and most of those are not vile racists as you people like to think of them (successful dehumanization of the enemy was always the essence of manpower morale in any war - cold or not, physical or political), but conservatives that would simply like the sexual preference issue to be a matter of the bedroom. They cannot be equated with supporters of the national-socialist party, nor the Ku Klux Klan, and it's hypocritical for a public official to do that when they cultivate great relations with Saudi sheikhs etc.
I was pretty reluctant to do so, but there are some similarities in arguing. Because it's not about banning a gay parade - it's about banning a human condition into the cellars not allowing them to feel equal.
It's called repression.
For the rest, I don't see, how you can defend this. With this line of arguing you can repress EVERY minority, provided a majority is somewhat against a certain something.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
had we treated them like equals
This is treating them like equals. And please don't use the royal "we".
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 09:11 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
They probably don't care, but that's not the question. The question is whether what Putin's government is doing is right. And that's a moral question.
Point is, there's a strawman built for people like you and you immediately bite as expected. I can point you 10 African governments which are not doing right at all from pretty much all or almost all moral points of view but you'll not engage in a similar discussion. In fact, cutting heads in Africa is, right now, in the past and in the future something that doesn't take as much space in your brain as gay rights in Russia or welfare in France or some random manifestation of the evil state oppressing the poor masses with built-in-but-not-manifested-libertarian-morals. Give it a break, it's all about a major public event (the Olympics) and a yet another chance to point a righteous Western liberal finger at a country which does not exactly follow Western liberal principles and among other things (read - most importantly, if you look under the surface) is occasionally a pain in the ass of certain powerful states and organizations. Nothing new.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 09:20 PM |
|
|
It's uncontroversial to say that Africa has numerous human rights violations. It's the default for that continent, it's not newsworthy. Of course it's bad, and I condemn it, but so does almost everybody else, it goes without saying. We don't talk about African human rights violations for the same reason we don't talk about how we walk around and breathe air. But when it comes to Russia, it's more newsworthy, because something is changing (i.e. it wasn't always like this).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2014 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:48, 11 Feb 2014.
|
And for a lot of people, Russia also feels a lot "closer" to "civilised" countries in Europe and the Americas than Somalia or some other relatively poor African country does which means people have higher expectations of Russia acting like a modern democracy. Had the United Kingdom passed an "anti-gay propaganda" law during or after the Summer Olympics in London then there would have been a massive snowstorm for sure.
tsar-ivor likes hungarian baths said:
This is treating them like equals. And please don't use the royal "we".
Passing legislation directly aimed at a specific group is treating them like equals? That's a creative definition of it.
Baklava: I was kind enough to take the time to address all your points. When you reply to an inconsistent post like yours in the sense that it flies in all kinds of directions (like all the strawmen, maybe I shouldn't bite at those) you do end up with a lot of quotes. I take it as you have run out of arguments (other than the collectivist "as long as the majority thinks something is right or wrong, it is right or wrong") against equal rights. That or you're just being a contrarian on purpose.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 01:17 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 01:25, 12 Feb 2014.
|
@MVass
Yes, MVass, but no group ever got rights in the face of an opposition as strong and numerous as that to gay marriage in Russia.
You need to understand that Putin's cabinet is, in essence, no more or less authoritarian than that of any other superpower; and that, since he is currently the only such option in Russia, he is simply a mixed blessing. Before him, Russia was a modern feudal system with oligarchs being able to bend the corrupt bureaucracy to suit them however they like, with the mob running rampant and getting to positions of power without a sweat, separatist terrorist cells growing in power in influence, etc. Putin instituted a sense of order - you will find his style unacceptable, because authoritarianism is better veiled in the US, but in Russia, whose most libertarian ruler in history was, like, Catherine the Great, that would be seen as a danger.
You cannot, for instance, snap your fingers and institute laissez-faire over there, expecting it to function fairly in an economy where the starting positions were set by machinations in the mob, shady businessmen, the military apparatus, etc. People know this, and actually prefer the general sense of safety around the uncompromising Putin. The second political party by the number of votes is the Communist one.
You can't change the mindset of a several-hundred-million voting body overnight.
In the end, it's not that different in America, except that the voters tend to value a sense of freedom over a sense of security over there. You still have oligarchs and tycoons working with the government, corruption in the political top of the country, jingoism, public surveillance, arrests over dancing in unfitting places etc.
@JJ
I am completely against banning anyone into the cellar. I am also unconditionally against violence. If it's illegal to beat someone in the street and the police doesn't react when it happens, protests are due against police inefficiency. If it's illegal to practice homosexuality, protests are due against it. But it's legal to practice homosexuality, and the police is equally ineffective against everything over there.
I have nothing against gay marriage in the legal sense. Hell, I am all for gay people being allowed to adopt. But not all places have grown enough for this to be implemented without careful deliberation and responsible behavior, or it may turn out for the worse. That's what I'm talking about.
I'm not defending anything here, except - in general - the Russian people, which are really not that bad and are currently experiencing hard scrutiny under the watchful gaze of some of the greatest hypocrites on the planet.
@Xerox
Like every person freshly introduced to the wondrous world of logical fallacies, you are trying your best to find them everywhere, even when they're not there.
I appreciate your kindness, but please note that I come around here in my limited free time, to do what is interesting to me. Wrestling to explain why my argumentation does not defy basic principles of logic to debaters who, uncommonly for men in their teens, have radical political views with a strenuous attitude to match, is not exactly my definition of having fun. I have neither time nor will to hop in quote wars in which I have to explain why every individual sentence I said is not a strawman, or why freedom of speech has nothing to do with laws for behavior in the public and regulation of education.
tl;dr Gays in Russia will sleep better knowing libertarian freshmen are out there in the free world, going out of their way to burn through strawmen and fight tirelessly to call Putin names, in order to make him have no choice but allow gay parades, which are the very root of the issue and will solve everything.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 02:10 AM |
|
|
You think the US is as authoritarian as Russia? You think Russia is getting less corrupt? Now I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about.
Edit: "Libertarian freshmen"? Not all places have "grown enough" for equality? Could you be any more condescending?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 02:48 AM |
|
|
I... what?
Yes, I think the US government is not overall notably less authoritarian than that of Russia, except in rhetoric. This is a completely valid stance, and hardly a sign of not knowing what one is talking about. Hell, I wish I didn't know what I'm talking about. That discussion doesn't have much to do with this topic, however.
No, I don't think Russia is getting less corrupt. I think the rate of it getting corrupt is less than what it would be under complete oligarch and mafia rampage. You can buy a senator in the US as well. You can buy the entire congress, it's called lobbying.
I'm not sure which part of "not all places have grown - as in, developed, or westernized - enough for this to be implemented without careful deliberation and responsible behavior, or it may turn out for the worse" pissed you off so much.
Nor which part of calling Xer a libertarian freshman. You're a libertarian, Xer, aren't you? I thought you're a freshman, as in, the first year of university. Perhaps I missed it by a year or two?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
