|
| Thread: Propaganda/Expression, LGBT rights, Sovereignty rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted February 12, 2014 03:15 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
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.
Some discussion ago you argued that someone else's live from another country should have the same value as one in your own country ( about muslim womens stuck wearing a veil or get beaten, to counter someone else s argument about let it change by itself rather than force change... and I agree with you btw ).
Well it's kind of the same here, I mean... while being mean to gay people is bad, being mean to any kind of group of people is bad, and I suppose baklava is just pointing out that, that we aren't really any better in many ways.
My favorite and somewhat recent example is how the US military, a bit pass the middle of the war in Iraq, gave the OK to their troops to shoot and kill terrorists that were hidden behind civilians... which resulted in something we should call "an atrocity". They gave that OK a few months after all that "door to door" campaign. Aren't we lead to believe in true justice, and how true justice "would rather leave a criminal in the open rather than an innocent in jail" ? What happened to that? We all suddenly take that greater good excuse pill and turn a blind eye. True justice would have dictated to retreat from such underhanded tactic rather than press on. But strangely enough, everyone forgot about that, nobody gave a damn about it. We all took the pill and forgot soon after.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 03:22 AM |
|
|
The US's foreign wars, while certainly wrong, are not an example of authoritarianism because that term typically refers to domestic policy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 03:43 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:50, 12 Feb 2014.
|
I never got the American libertarian hate on military interventions. If you can liberate through force, you should. Of course the wars of the 21st century have so far proven (maaaaaaybe Libya's an exception) that's much easier said than done. Which is why I am more skeptical than some of my collegues wanting Israel to join the Federated States of Europe in an intervention on Assad.
Baklava: I'm in my last year of high school. Also, you've completely misunderstood if you think that I think pride parades or slamming Putin is going to solve Russia's anti-LGBTQ problem. While I think pride parades and gay propaganda have the right to exist (restricted only by property rights), I've never said they are the solution. Numerous times I've said that they are not efficient at changing the situation.
No, I think the solution is much more long-term and broad. Most importantly is a good economic development which has globally proven itself to be an amazing gateway drug to a more progressive culture. Urbanisation, internet access and general globalisation (the immense soft power of culture should not be underestimated) are also important to open ignorant eyes. Russia needs all of these to develop a culture supporting the emanicipation of the individual over sticking to tradition.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 04:07 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
The US's foreign wars, while certainly wrong, are not an example of authoritarianism because that term typically refers to domestic policy.
What you wrote is true, but that is exactly why I brought that argument of yours... "country limits should not matter" .
The USA sure are authoritarians toward many countries. Obey the US military or get shot? Sounds like extreme authoritarianism to me.
How should I word it... It's ok to harm other citizens from other countries, just not your own? And to compare that logic to Russia s recent dumb stance on the gay people... because harming your own citizens rather than other country s citizens is worse?
Judging a country's treatment of their own citizens only, excluding how they treat other country s citizens is a narrow focus that advantages the USA when we compare USA vs Russia...
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 04:21 AM |
|
Edited by kayna at 04:23, 12 Feb 2014.
|
xerox said:
If you can liberate through force, you should.
I agree with that, actually. But.....
xerox said:
Of course the wars of the 21st century have so far proven (maaaaaaybe Libya's an exception) that's much easier said than done.
Oops.... Sorry guys... we... we messed up! *purses his lips, pockets his hands and looks at the floor ashamed* Dang... how many hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people got cancer in Iraq and Afganistan now? How many kids are born with defects? Did we really place land mines with radioactive gas out there? 750 000 tons of depleted uranium shells? Hmm... I suppose with all the radioactive diseases over there, it might take them a lot more years to recover from the war.
Not even talking about the direct civilian deaths...
Well, it's ok, we tried, we failed, but...
... *squints and thinks for a good argument*
It's the intentions that counts!
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 04:28 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 04:44, 12 Feb 2014.
|
A trigger-happy, mercenary congress eager to send soldiers off to go kill and die on the other side of the planet, for narrow political interest and with dubious claims to back it up, is certainly a sign of authoritarianism.
Using taxation to fund a four times higher military spending than China (the first below, on the list) is most definitely a sign of authoritarianism.
Numerous acts suppressing the freedom of information or legalizing public surveillance are signs of authoritarianism that would make Orwell go "that's what I'm talking about".
Backdoor strengthening of these measures while distracting the public through an ideology of being a part of something grander than yourself, nationalist indoctrination overly patriotic education and mongering of fear and hatred through constant defamation of existent and nonexistent enemies - these are all textbook signs of authoritarianism.
I'm glad you have that stance on the LGBTQ problem in general, Xer, and sorry if I sounded condescending in my last post (you were no angel either, you libertarian delinquent). But in countries where the so-called gay propaganda is banned (although I still don't see what the big deal is), the way I see it, there are two options available. Activists over there can hold on to that, and bang their heads against a concrete wall while the West uses their troubles to further its own agenda, or they can overcome this and, since being gay is legal, work to implement it into society just like they always did. No one can or should tell you anything for being a gay man and not having to hide it, that much is clear even under this "new" law.
As for the argument going on about how this is important and covered in the media because it's something fresh - it's not like gay rights have been a thing under Khrushchev, Stalin, the Romanovs or Ivan the Terrible. By the same logic MVass used back in the day for poor people angry with capitalism, they're now better off than ever in history.
I'm not really using that as an argument. Don't worry.
At any rate, if the cops and the judicial system don't protect every man regardless of sexual orientation or race (though a man's financial situation was always much more of a factor in corrupt systems), well, fixing that would be a cause to fight for. Phrased like that, it might gather enough people to have the potential to change something, and it'd be impossible to write a negative law about that.
Putin's enemies are as of yet, however, uninterested in financing that.
Oh and, in order to claim the right to liberate anyone or anything, this has to go, for one. Secondly, you need to have a far more mature ruling body than that in the United States, where it acts on payment, narrow political interest and with extreme prejudice. Thirdly, you need to expend all other options before it, and ensure no one is being manipulated into anything; that you will be able to complete the assignment on time; and above all, that you won't make the situation worse.
All this taken into account, liberation by force is effectively bullshyte, applicable for only a handful of situations in history, but tempting as a tool of domination.
By the way... LGBTQ. Why the Q? Last time I checked, "queer" was derogatory for "gay", wasn't it? Wouldn't that be like Martin Luther King fighting for the rights of African-Americans and niggaz? Or Moses going "I need you to release all the Jews. And kikes."
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 05:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I never got the American libertarian hate on military interventions. If you can liberate through force, you should.
A little off topic, but if you're under the impression that US invades countries to liberate them, you become the perfect example of what people call libertarian naiveness. That being said, even if that was the case, history has shown us times and times again, it's sociologically impossible to "liberate" a country through military force. You have to have infrastructral, institutional and cultural circumstances and maturity. Building up puppet regimes to trade with is not a democratic agenda, nor does it serve to develop one in the future.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 05:40 AM |
|
|
Xerox:
There are three arguments against humanitarian military intervention:
1. It isn't really humanitarian, it's an imperialistic war that benefits the military-industrial complex, as usual.
2. It creates more enemies for the United States - people generally don't like being bombed, even if the bombs are "for a good cause".
3. The job of the military is to protect the territory of the United States, as it's hired to by its customers, the taxpayers. When you hire a plumber, you expect him to work on your house, not to turn around and work on someone else's instead. The same principle applies to the military.
kayna:
No, I definitely don't think it's okay to harm the citizens of other countries, as the US is doing. It's murder, plain and simple. But it's not authoritarianism, because the US isn't claiming sovereignty over the conquered territory. Only a domestic government (or an entity acting like a domestic government) can be authoritarian. I judge the US harshly for its aggressive, imperialistic wars, but "authoritarian" is the wrong word to describe them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 06:14 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
it's not authoritarianism, because the US isn't claiming sovereignty over the conquered territory.
Well, seems like quite a word game to me... A whole army taking control for 5 - 10 years ... They may not verbally claim sovereignty but they sure act like they do, temporarily at least.
Well, anyhow. No use arguing about which word is right or not. Language isn't my forte, no problem giving that one to you lol.
I was just trying to understand why you sometimes seemed to add country limits to your arguments and other times you did not, because all humans should be treated the same everywhere.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 01:54 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
I never got the American libertarian hate on military interventions. If you can liberate through force, you should.
A little off topic, but if you're under the impression that US invades countries to liberate them, you become the perfect example of what people call libertarian naiveness.
I'm hardly under that impression. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia would not have been best friends forever with the West. The US engages in military intervention to advance its interests. Saying it's for spreading "democracy" is rhetorics. That doesn't mean an intervention can't lead to some liberation while still advancing the interests of the interventionist. The road to freedom is a long one and getting rid of a dictator could be a first step. Don't you think North Korea is likely to become a more liberated if an intervention replaced its regime with a more democratic, puppet government?
Mvass:
1. I don't necessarily think imperialism is bad. Individuals have rights, not governments. And if you can replace governments that do not respect individual rights with one that does through advancing your imperialistic interests, then I don't perceive that as unjustified.
2. The US doesn't need to be friends with authoritarian regimes that won't bend. Allying with them should be done out of strategic interest and a belief that it might lead them to a more democratic future (like I don't think isolating Iran is going to make it more democratic).
3. I don't mind if the job of militaries is to protect people outside of its territory. Authoritarian dictatorships are not legitimate. There is nothing wrong with trying to overthrow them. However, it's better that this is done through international cooperation (UN, EU, NATO) than the US bombing freedom all over the world by itself.
Also the military can protect its "customers" (being forced to pay taxes to fund the military is not being a customer) by advancing their interests abroad. The world is a safer place for Americans (and others) now that the Soviet Union doesn't control half the world through itself and its puppet governments. All great powers will also try to be more or less imperialistic and I feel much safer in the US realising those ambitions than Russia or China.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That doesn't mean an intervention can't lead to some liberation while still advancing the interests of the interventionist. The road to freedom is a long one and getting rid of a dictator could be a first step. Don't you think North Korea is likely to become a more liberated if an intervention replaced its regime with a more democratic, puppet government?
Every nation has the government that they deserve. In the west we have far better equality for women, better standards of living, more income etc and that works for us, but we have no right to enforce our standards on others, no more than others have to do on us. So it's all well and all criticizing Saudi Arabia for example for it's scant regard for female emancipation, but you must realize that to them our system is equally as bizarre and they hold their system to be more morally superior than ours.
I wonder how you would feel if Saudies began protesting in Sweden at the morally backward western social standards. You'd think them lunatics, but that's exactly how your views would be regarded there. As I said, you have no more right to interfere than they do, so instead of accepting that you are advocating the caveman standards of: the one who has the bigger stick will decide which one is right and which one is wrong, and just force them to your perspective at gun point, but it's fine because they'll thank you later.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 04:46 PM |
|
|
Xerox:
The "taxpayers are customers" analogy has its limits (because taxation is forced), but the reason taxation to fund the military is justified is because taxpayers want to be protected, but national defense, being a public good, would be difficult to fund voluntarily, at least in sufficient quantity. Aside from the aspect of the funding being compulsory (as it has to be), hiring a military for defense is much like hiring a security guard - it's legitimate, justified, etc. But you can't hire a "security guard" to go around beating people up if you think they might be a threat to you. There are a lot of people who could kill me if they wanted to, but I wouldn't be justified in preemptively killing them - that would go far beyond self-defense.
I think it would be fine for a theoretical private party to use force to replace an authoritarian government with a liberal one, but the military is neither private (being taxpayer-funded) nor likely to promote liberty.
Tsar:
Yes, we and the Saudis each consider each other's systems to be bizarre. But that doesn't make them equally good or bad - secular Western liberalism is better than sexist theocracy. That doesn't mean we should spread it by force, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 12, 2014 08:18 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I'm hardly under that impression. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia would not have been best friends forever with the West. The US engages in military intervention to advance its interests. Saying it's for spreading "democracy" is rhetorics. That doesn't mean an intervention can't lead to some liberation while still advancing the interests of the interventionist. The road to freedom is a long one and getting rid of a dictator could be a first step. Don't you think North Korea is likely to become a more liberated if an intervention replaced its regime with a more democratic, puppet government?
No. It's no wonder you didn't quote the second part of my reply. If you don't have the proper institutions or tradition, the new system will just be an empty shell. Corruption and bribes will take over, etc etc. Countries go through democracy gradually, just think of the western democracies a hundred years ago and think of the progress they achieved. You can't squeeze that into a puppet regime built in 2 years. Besides, Tsar has a point, without the social experiences that come along the way, it will feel like aliens enforcing their degenerate, weird customs. People will blame the social results (which won't be very achieving to begin with, because of the aforementioned) on the new system itself.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 06:58 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
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).
That's a wonderful logic which I can use to say "homophobia is the default for Russia, it's like breathing air". See? It sounds so much more relaxing now.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 07:06 AM |
|
|
Sure, Russia has been homophobic for a long time, but the change in law is new.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 08:17 AM |
|
|
Wait, wait.
True: Russia had gay sex under punishment and homosexuality was considered a mental illness, until ... 15 years or so ago. Which means the population is used to the idea that gay sex is sick.
Also True: Within the sex-with-a-minor laws punishment for gays is heavier than punishment for heteros - which is somewhat strange when there is this idea of a mental illness around (not to mention that this is strange anyway considering that gay sex is not an offense in Russia).
Strange Fact: Having gay sex with a 16-17-year old is fine; telling them the sex was great is a punishable offense.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 04:32 PM |
|
|
Whirligig perspective.
The most fertile field for every of the evil human aspects, pedophilia, racism, intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, is still the islamo-african area, the same one which sends waves of pawns upon Europe, upon us. Yet when somebody exhorts the patriotic shield he is suddenly called by all names and accused of worst defects. What does Russia is a tiny percentage of what your beloved muslim neighbor thinks and reads everyday in his bedside, yet you are always first to victimize him, urge for rotten excuses then pay for his fees; but for Russia, oh my good, nuke them, how they dare!
Go Putin, resist to the western trash.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 05:07 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Whirligig perspective.
The most fertile field for every of the evil human aspects, pedophilia, racism, intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, is still the islamo-african area, the same one which sends waves of pawns upon Europe, upon us. Yet when somebody exhorts the patriotic shield he is suddenly called by all names and accused of worst defects. What does Russia is a tiny percentage of what your beloved muslim neighbor thinks and reads everyday in his bedside, yet you are always first to victimize him, urge for rotten excuses then pay for his fees; but for Russia, oh my good, nuke them, how they dare!
Go Putin, resist to the western trash.
this is wrong, sal. the muslim culture that i know of is very permitting of gays. in fact, it is commonplace that males have sex with males; i have been told from muslims themselves that sex with males is for pleasure, and sex with females is only for procreating.
so, for this argument, muslims are more tolerant. as for pedophilia, i don't know. i know(and the rest of the world knows) that muslims are racist, misogynistic, and overall intolerant of many things indeed, but gay sex isn't one of those things.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 07:09 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
this is wrong, sal. the muslim culture that i know of is very permitting of gays. in fact, it is commonplace that males have sex with males; i have been told from muslims themselves that sex with males is for pleasure, and sex with females is only for procreating.
Oh my. So many different interpretations of the same book. Well, perhaps not. So many different books with the same cover as well! Sometimes I question religious people's reading comprehension skills... sometimes I question book manufacturers too.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 07:42 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
