[Mentalist]

Gnaw, on 16 August 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 August 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Well I guess we don't have to worry, by the sounds of things soon the Gays in Russia will have their own parks benches, drinking fountains and toilets so they wont have to associate with these bigots!

Without meaning to sound too dramatic I always ask myself how a society gets to the point where racism and bigotry gets to the point when people start denying their fellow man human rights and even life but now I see I overestimated the process. It just needs to happen one slow step a time.

The situation is starting to sound very worrying to my ears.

Silencer, on 14 August 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

While they may endorse (implicitly or otherwise) the specific action of these groups, that doesn't mean that they broadly align with them in any sense, political or otherwise, aside from that common ground/turning a blind eye.

Wouldn't it be like calling a left-wing government a right-wing party because they have one policy in common? (Or more?)

D, on 15 August 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 14 August 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Blend, on 14 August 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

So what? We ignore the rise of the neo-nazi regime in Russia just so these people can play some sports? Sports to the detriment of a human being's right to live a peaceful life? To exist?

It's been steadily ignored for the past, what? 15 years? I doubt that'll change anytime soon.


Why? because people are poor and starving. Human rights and universal values are all well and good, but no one gives a damn when the population struggles to survive the next day. Those types of circumstances encourage "us vs them", and all outsiders become intolerable.

It's all well and good to rage at the unfairness of it all. And I do feel for all those these laws will opress. But the words "international outrage" are really meaningless in this case. All you'll do is reinforce Russia's people's antagonism towards the West and their "liberal ideas".

playing to the angry and hateful to distract them form the fact that the vast majority of Russia's problems today have either been caused or exacerbated by the corruption, avarice and incompetence of the post-Soviet political elite.

The persecution of gays and other minorities in Russia is thus not just cruel but cynical too, for it is a tool to distract the dangerous elements of Russian society away from the real cause of its problems.

I snipped your posts down to what I see as the common element. The 'other'.

Imnso, Cause is damned right to be worried. This is the (near) end result of an orchestrated, deliberate and categorical destruction of a cohesive society. Somebody wants to return to the good old days of open absolute totalitarianism. Putin may or may not be the somebody but he's KGB to the core and has no problem with being the visible front.

The opposition wealthy have been subdued or co-opted. The journalists have been near silenced. The church is on board. The 'pussy riot' thing may have shown that Russian women won't be returned to third class, but it also told them that they had damn well as a category be quiet and go along.

What is needed is a 'enemy within' with 'international elements'. The 'enemy' needs to be small but non centralized; "somebody you know could be one of them" adds to the urgency of the danger. They need to be powerless. They need to be fractured. They need to be marginalized members in other countries as well to soften and split the international reactions and to draw powerful voices of support for the regime. (Anyone heard an evangelical speak out against what is occuring?) The LGBT community may not be the perfect candidate, but it is a more than suitable one for the purpose and better than most. And the Olympics is the perfect stage. The hue and outcry is essential to making the group a target of an internal reactionary mass movement. It joins the diverse elements together to 'defend' their nation. That is not to say that we shouldn't be making the hue and cry. But it is important to know that doing so can be just as damaging as not saying anything. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

From what little I've seen, the silence from the military is deafening; not because I think they're paragons of open societies but because they aren't saying anything. I think that means they're seeing a very volatile situation and watching to see if it simmers, boils, or explodes. Genocidal violence is already occuring as we know but it has yet to reach the level that I believe is inevitable. Explosive would be better in the long run but I cannot see Putin wanting it or the military allowing it. And theirs are the only opinions that matter at that point.

I fear the Russians are in for a long and bitter winter. Several years of it.

Edit: a couple of grammar and spelling errors.

May be it's the fact that I was born on the other side of the curtain, but...

I find it ironic that people are starting to make a big deal of this "now". This attitude is NOT marginal. It NEVER was.
The East never had the 60s, the equal rights movement and other social justice pro-tolerance mass movements/events. There was NEVER acceptance for LGBT people back East. Hell, I was growing up less than a hundred clicks from the Polish border, in the most anti-Soviet district of former USSR there was--back in Russia, they used to scare kids with mentions of my region. And I distinctly remember, growing up in grades 3-6, the WORST thing that could possibly happen to a schoolkid was to have their peers decide they were "gay". Severe beatings everyday for life would be getting off lightly. Chances were, parents wouldn't step in much, if their child was actually not "normal". They'd seek psychiatric help for the kid.

This law in Russia isn't something that sprung up out of nowhere--believe it or not, it DOES probably reflect public sentiment. I can assure you that anyone aged 40 and up will voice their support for it if asked. it's not as if you are talking about a community that has enjoyed equality and is now suddenly being marginalized. What this law does (in Russia) is reinforce the status quo. Things aren't getting worse--if you were public about being an LGBT before, you were doing so knowing full well the risks you were in--from just about every neighbourhood thug. If anything, now that they are making it officially illegal, it'd be harder for those with extreme hatred to find easy victims.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the law. This post is here just to try to help people understand: this isn't something you can blame on an amorphous government for...anymore than you'd blame the King of Saudi Arabia for setting Sharia as law. It's a different society, one that never was friendly to LGBT people to begin with. Applying Western standards to judge what they are doing is a waste of time.

ETA:

D, on 15 August 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 14 August 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Blend, on 14 August 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 13 August 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

While normally I would be all for a boycott, what it really ends up doing is hurting the athletes. I remember a program HBO had on the effect the 80 (I think) boycott had. These people train for years and maybe have only one Olympic window in which to win a medal. It's not like most olympic sports are highly paid athletes as well, so I don't know. Just don't want to spite the athletes to make a political point.

On the other hand, those commie bastards have it coming because of Red Dawn.

Wolverines!

So what? We ignore the rise of the neo-nazi regime in Russia just so these people can play some sports? Sports to the detriment of a human being's right to live a peaceful life? To exist?

It's been steadily ignored for the past, what? 15 years? I doubt that'll change anytime soon.
I'm not here to defend Russia's regime, but I will say this: if you are trying to apply "traditional", Western "civilization values", you are wasting your time. Russia's in the midst of a prolonged demographic crisis. Eastern part's being actively populated by Chinese immigrants, while Western Russia's equally actively being occupied by Central Asians (cities) as well as the various Caucass peoples (both cities and country). Chechens may have lost the war, but htey got the consolation prize of becoming top dogs in Russia's organised crime. This hasn't happened in a day, it's been a long-term process ignored by the state. Hell, at this point the population of Moscow is smth like 30% Muslim, if not more.

And unlike Western states, (like Canada), the idea of "multiculturalism" and tolerance isn't exactly a viable one. Why? because people are poor and starving. Human rights and universal values are all well and good, but no one gives a damn when the population struggles to survive the next day. Those types of circumstances encourage "us vs them", and all outsiders become intolerable.

It's all well and good to rage at the unfairness of it all. And I do feel for all those these laws will opress. But the words "international outrage" are really meaningless in this case. All you'll do is reinforce Russia's people's antagonism towards the West and their "liberal ideas".

I understand the circumstances under which these laws and acts are being committed, but not only do they not excuse these people for being scum but this kind of presentation also ignores the fact that this whole persecution campaign, and similarly state complicity in the neo-Nazi persecution of Central Asian immigrants in European Russia's cities, is all part of a façade, playing to the angry and hateful to distract them form the fact that the vast majority of Russia's problems today have either been caused or exacerbated by the corruption, avarice and incompetence of the post-Soviet political elite. After all, the other reason Sochi's making the news is that it is likely to be the most expensive Olympics in history, at $50 billion plus ($10 billion more than the Beijing Summer Games), and that much of this huge cost is likely down to corruption. The persecution of gays and other minorities in Russia is thus not just cruel but cynical too, for it is a tool to distract the dangerous elements of Russian society away from the real cause of its problems.

A) State is allowing thousands of illegal Central Asian migrants to be in Russia in the first place. If they were to actively defend them against persecution, they'd have to acknowledge their existence. And deport the whole lot of them. Instead, they are letting them take their chances among the angry locals.

B ) please, pleeease don't get me started on the "post Soviet elite".... yeah, the guys who had Chicago School of Economic grads as "advisors", whose advice boiled down to "just let the market sort it out!"....and who a few years later said "well, we don't know what happened! THE MARKET WAS SUPPOSED TO FIX IT ALL!!!" If you don't know anyhting, then why the hell are you tearing down something that, y'know works? Instead of changing it gradually, a la china?
Your Average Russian knows EXACTLY why he or she can't rely on a state social safety net, doesn't have a guaranteed job for life, is rapidly losing their healthcare system and has had a guaranteed free post-secondary education system being reduced to "who'll pay the most gets the best marks". And right on top of their list is every single Russian multi-millionaire, or industrial tycoon (most of whom are leaders or avid supporters of so-called "opposition parties". You know, the people who used the "prihvatizatsya" process to steal all those factories, mines, oil wells that used to belong to the state and worked to provide money to fund all those wonderful things they don't have anymore.
Of course, Putin and CO are corrupt. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. That's an axiom. politician equals crook. But that doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the top of an average Russian's shit list, when compared to the Berezovskys and Abramoviches--y'know, the guys whose names you see on those Forbes lists.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 16 August 2013 - 04:58 AM

[Cause]

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

I find it ironic that people are starting to make a big deal of this "now". This attitude is NOT marginal. It NEVER was.
The East never had the 60s, the equal rights movement and other social justice pro-tolerance mass movements/events. There was NEVER acceptance for LGBT people back East. Hell, I was growing up less than a hundred clicks from the Polish border, in the most anti-Soviet district of former USSR there was--back in Russia, they used to scare kids with mentions of my region. And I distinctly remember, growing up in grades 3-6, the WORST thing that could possibly happen to a schoolkid was to have their peers decide they were "gay". Severe beatings everyday for life would be getting off lightly. Chances were, parents wouldn't step in much, if their child was actually not "normal". They'd seek psychiatric help for the kid.

This law in Russia isn't something that sprung up out of nowhere--believe it or not, it DOES probably reflect public sentiment. I can assure you that anyone aged 40 and up will voice their support for it if asked. it's not as if you are talking about a community that has enjoyed equality and is now suddenly being marginalized. What this law does (in Russia) is reinforce the status quo. Things aren't getting worse--if you were public about being an LGBT before, you were doing so knowing full well the risks you were in--from just about every neighbourhood thug. If anything, now that they are making it officially illegal, it'd be harder for those with extreme hatred to find easy victims.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the law. This post is here just to try to help people understand: this isn't something you can blame on an amorphous government for...anymore than you'd blame the King of Saudi Arabia for setting Sharia as law. It's a different society, one that never was friendly to LGBT people to begin with. Applying Western standards to judge what they are doing is a waste of time.

Its been twenty years in my country since apartheid ended, you know what? Everyone still hates black people. Especially other black people! The Xhosa hate the Zulus, the Zulus hate the Xhosa. They both think the other tribes are beneath them. All south African tribes agree though we need to kill those bloody foreigners who steal our jobs and are not us. Still my country is better off now then it was. Why? because discrimination is no longer legally mandated! While this very morning there was a another xenophobic riot in my country at least the police were not joining in and in their very incompetent way tried to stop it! While we still have Affrikaans men (The Boeremag) hoping to drive all black men out of the country and into the sea, a year long legal case has sent them all to jail.

Legally mandated bigotry is what made apartheid so terrible, its what makes Nazi Germany so disgusting and it is what made the slave trade so abhorrent. People Still hate black people in america, but they better know better than to go lynch a black man, people still hate Jews but at least now the law will defend us, and people still keep slaves all around the world but at least they are ashamed enough to hide it.

Bigotry and hate is a fact of the world. However making laws which promote it is the start of something that never ends well. Honestly I never knew that Russia was so intolerant of Gays. I would not have cared! Legal discrimination however is the red line that countries must not be allowed to cross! Its too late for Saudia Arabia to change, Uganda is already a hell so no pressure is likely to make them change their ways. Hopefully Russia can be influenced by the wider world.

If I was a Gay man living in Russia today I would leave! The Jews who left Germany don't regret it I assure you.

This post has been edited by Cause: 16 August 2013 - 09:08 AM

[D'iversify]

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Of course, Putin and CO are corrupt. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. That's an axiom. politician equals crook. But that doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the top of an average Russian's shit list, when compared to the Berezovskys and Abramoviches--y'know, the guys whose names you see on those Forbes lists.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except my impressions are that the distance between the oligarchs and the politicians is less substantial than this. I mean, it's not as if Putin and his inner circle aren't loaded themselves - if they don't appear on Forbes it's usually because they don't like this wealth publically discussed. And Putin has no problem with the oligarchs who keep quiet and don't fund opposition to him - Abramovich was governor of Chukotka until recently and has a very amiable relationship with the President. The mistake Berezovsky, Khodorkhovsky, etc., made was deciding to be openly political but not on Putin's side.

[Morgoth]

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Of course, Putin and CO are corrupt. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. That's an axiom. politician equals crook. But that doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the top of an average Russian's shit list, when compared to the Berezovskys and Abramoviches--y'know, the guys whose names you see on those Forbes lists.

This is the same sort of nonsensical statements you hear from chinese officials talking about corruption. "There's just as much corruption in the west, and anyone who thinks otherwise are just naive!"

This is certainly not true, and neither is the absurd claim that Putin et al are no more corrupt than any other politician. Politician does not equal crook, and trying to hand wave Putin's actions away as "all politicians are the same" shows a level of ignorance, or wilfull blindness, of what is going on in Russia that is quite embarassing.

It would be a little ridiculous to point you to the hundreds of articles written on this topic by such rags as the Economist, The New York Times and so on. Still, you can always start with the diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks a few years ago. http://www.theguardi...ir-putin-claims

[Mentalist]

Morgoth, on 16 August 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Of course, Putin and CO are corrupt. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. That's an axiom. politician equals crook. But that doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the top of an average Russian's shit list, when compared to the Berezovskys and Abramoviches--y'know, the guys whose names you see on those Forbes lists.

This is the same sort of nonsensical statements you hear from chinese officials talking about corruption. "There's just as much corruption in the west, and anyone who thinks otherwise are just naive!"

This is certainly not true, and neither is the absurd claim that Putin et al are no more corrupt than any other politician. Politician does not equal crook, and trying to hand wave Putin's actions away as "all politicians are the same" shows a level of ignorance, or wilfull blindness, of what is going on in Russia that is quite embarassing.

It would be a little ridiculous to point you to the hundreds of articles written on this topic by such rags as the Economist, The New York Times and so on. Still, you can always start with the diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks a few years ago. http://www.theguardi...ir-putin-claims

I'm not talking about Western politicians here, Morgy. Frankly, I don't care much about Western politicians. Because I live prosperously enough to not care. If you are in politics in the East, you are a crook. it's an axiom, because there is no "honest money" back East.

And my point wasn't about my own beliefs, as much as illustrating the situation from the POV of an individual Russian. You're missing the point.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 16 August 2013 - 01:23 PM

[Morgoth]

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 16 August 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Of course, Putin and CO are corrupt. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. That's an axiom. politician equals crook. But that doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the top of an average Russian's shit list, when compared to the Berezovskys and Abramoviches--y'know, the guys whose names you see on those Forbes lists.

This is the same sort of nonsensical statements you hear from chinese officials talking about corruption. "There's just as much corruption in the west, and anyone who thinks otherwise are just naive!"

This is certainly not true, and neither is the absurd claim that Putin et al are no more corrupt than any other politician. Politician does not equal crook, and trying to hand wave Putin's actions away as "all politicians are the same" shows a level of ignorance, or wilfull blindness, of what is going on in Russia that is quite embarassing.

It would be a little ridiculous to point you to the hundreds of articles written on this topic by such rags as the Economist, The New York Times and so on. Still, you can always start with the diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks a few years ago. http://www.theguardi...ir-putin-claims

I'm not talking about Western politicians here, Morgy. Frankly, I don't care much about Western politicians. Because I live prosperously enough to not care. If you are in politics in the East, you are a crook. it's an axiom, because there is no "honest money" back East.

And my point wasn't about my own beliefs, as much as illustrating the situation from the POV of an individual Russian. You're missing the point.

Ah, I didn't get that. Well, then my tone was unfair and I appologize. Still, if the prevailing attitude in that part of the world is that Putin is just another politician then they truly are fucked.

[Blend]

I don't think 'it's always been like this here in the East' is an acceptable excuse in any instance, even when I'm a Westerner looking into the Eastern way of life.

If you think that growing up gay in Canada or the USA was always easy, then you've got a big surprise coming your way. We've made leaps and bounds in obtaining equal rights because of the people who came before us who fought for their rights. And still, if you think I didn't get beat up for being a fag when I was a kid, you're gonna be surprised, cause I did, and this isn't that long ago, relatively speaking. If you think kids these days don't STILL get called a fag and beat up in certain parts of our countries, then you're just dead wrong.

I'm not commenting about whether or not we are or were just as bad as Russia, I'm just commenting on how fucking ignorant I felt your response above was, whether you believe in what you were saying or not.

Cause's response up above was beautiful, and I can't agree more with him. Even if this has always been the 'way of life' in Russia, it's now being enshrined into their laws, and that is absolutely not acceptable. That their laws would not protect a human being, that they would allow a human being to be so dehumanized, is what is the problem, not their history of aggression, be it real or imagined. It's very difficult to fight for your right to exist when your country's own laws allow for others to so deliberately and cruelly silence you.

[Mentalist]

Morgoth, on 16 August 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 16 August 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 16 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Of course, Putin and CO are corrupt. THEY ARE POLITICIANS. That's an axiom. politician equals crook. But that doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the top of an average Russian's shit list, when compared to the Berezovskys and Abramoviches--y'know, the guys whose names you see on those Forbes lists.

This is the same sort of nonsensical statements you hear from chinese officials talking about corruption. "There's just as much corruption in the west, and anyone who thinks otherwise are just naive!"

This is certainly not true, and neither is the absurd claim that Putin et al are no more corrupt than any other politician. Politician does not equal crook, and trying to hand wave Putin's actions away as "all politicians are the same" shows a level of ignorance, or wilfull blindness, of what is going on in Russia that is quite embarassing.

It would be a little ridiculous to point you to the hundreds of articles written on this topic by such rags as the Economist, The New York Times and so on. Still, you can always start with the diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks a few years ago. http://www.theguardi...ir-putin-claims

I'm not talking about Western politicians here, Morgy. Frankly, I don't care much about Western politicians. Because I live prosperously enough to not care. If you are in politics in the East, you are a crook. it's an axiom, because there is no "honest money" back East.

And my point wasn't about my own beliefs, as much as illustrating the situation from the POV of an individual Russian. You're missing the point.

Ah, I didn't get that. Well, then my tone was unfair and I appologize. Still, if the prevailing attitude in that part of the world is that Putin is just another politician then they truly are fucked.

it's not so much that "he's just another politician". His authoritarian overtones are obvious. It's more that people don't care. "Democracy" is firmly associated with the Bad Old 90s, and no one wants to go back to THAT. the concept of "democracy" is discredited, and liberalism never took any root to begin with. "strong hand rule" provides a measure of stability, and is considered by most to be the lesser of the two evils.

[Mentalist]

Blend, on 16 August 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't think 'it's always been like this here in the East' is an acceptable excuse in any instance, even when I'm a Westerner looking into the Eastern way of life.

If you think that growing up gay in Canada or the USA was always easy, then you've got a big surprise coming your way. We've made leaps and bounds in obtaining equal rights because of the people who came before us who fought for their rights. And still, if you think I didn't get beat up for being a fag when I was a kid, you're gonna be surprised, cause I did, and this isn't that long ago, relatively speaking. If you think kids these days don't STILL get called a fag and beat up in certain parts of our countries, then you're just dead wrong.

I'm not commenting about whether or not we are or were just as bad as Russia, I'm just commenting on how fucking ignorant I felt your response above was, whether you believe in what you were saying or not.

Cause's response up above was beautiful, and I can't agree more with him. Even if this has always been the 'way of life' in Russia, it's now being enshrined into their laws, and that is absolutely not acceptable. That their laws would not protect a human being, that they would allow a human being to be so dehumanized, is what is the problem, not their history of aggression, be it real or imagined. It's very difficult to fight for your right to exist when your country's own laws allow for others to so deliberately and cruelly silence you.

Blend, I realize that this is a painful subject. And I am not trying to offend, because I'm not in any way condoning what is happening. My point, as it was made, is simply this: I don't believe that in this particular case what is happening is the entirely the fault of the Russian state. To put it frankly, if you were to hold a referendum about this law in Russian (or probably anywhere in the CIS, with the possible exclusion of the Baltics), and you were able to achieve 100% clean elections, the law would still pass. Intolerance is a societal illness in this case, and the law in question is a symptom, not the cause.

What i'm trying to say, in terms of the broader picture, is that it's foolish expect the same standards of respect to things like human rights from every single place. And it's a serious mistake to expect the same expectations to apply to Russia as you would in the West. The East is not a liberal society. And until it gets to the point where it can embrace the values of tolerance, your pleas will fall on deaf ears.

It's not that I don't think your indignation isn't admirable, as is a desire to do something about the situation. But pointing at Putin and saying "it's all his fault" is not a good way to do it in this case. If there is to be a change it needs to be systemic. And this law, as draconian as it is on paper, is largely a cosmetic change, when you look at what has actually been happening. The very same corruption that's been lamented about earlier up thread is a strong indicator that the law won't actually change anything.

[D'rek]

I think Ment is making a good point. The attitudes of the country's citizens versus those looking in makes a big difference in shaping the perspective on both sides. Imagine an international outcry for polygamy to be legalized in Canada, the US, the UK, etc. Those of us living in these countries are probably majorly against polygamy and the idea of legalizing it seems laughable to us, but someone outside can say "look at how ignorant those Canadians are, just because you express your true self in a healthy polygamous relationship(s) you get fined and put in jail! Not to mention that their culture is so bigoted that any kids who says he is polygamist or reveals that his parents are probably gets beaten up, while polygamous families get accused of debauchery by all their neighbours!" How would that be any different?

[Abyss]

Well for one thing homosexuality isn't used as a cloak for fanatical religiously derived abusive and demeaning relationships the way polygamy is. ...But i realize that's just nitpicking the metaphor.

Russia isnt a third world tin pot and mud hut republic, its a god damned first world country that effectively pretended to be the first/second most powerful country in the world for decades, and the entire country from its politicos to Yuri average in the streets knows damn well what it's doing.

...which is why it was idiocy to hold the Olympics there.

[EmperorMagus]

Abyss, on 17 August 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

its a god damned first world country that effectively

What do you mean by first world country? Russia was second world during the cold war and is now considered a developing country.

http://en.wikipedia....velopment_Index

Abyss, on 17 August 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Well for one thing homosexuality isn't used as a cloak for fanatical religiously derived abusive and demeaning relationships the way polygamy is. ...But i realize that's just nitpicking the metaphor.

Also, if you are to abide the religion, polygamy is as valid a way of living as any other way as long as the it is not done by coercion. Yes, doing it the way some Muslims are doing it today is wrong but it is not wrong by default.
You can't just say it's wrong for a woman to have four husbands because some Muslims may abuse their multiple wives.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 17 August 2013 - 11:13 AM

[Illuyankas]

The difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy is a choice.

[Silencer]

Illuyankas, on 17 August 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

The difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy is a choice.

Interesting take. I'm not sure I disagree, but to borrow an argument from homosexuality; "You can't help who you love." - does this not apply to loving more than one person at the same time? In that sense, polygamy is only a choice in as much as one must choose to be openly homosexual.

I guess the distinction is actually one of wording; D'rek doesn't mean polygamy, she means polyamory. Bam, now it's not a choice. Polygamy = homosexual marriage. You choose to marry. Polyamory is the correct analogy.

[Gnaw]

Silencer, on 17 August 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Illuyankas, on 17 August 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

The difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy is a choice.

Interesting take. I'm not sure I disagree, but to borrow an argument from homosexuality; "You can't help who you love." - does this not apply to loving more than one person at the same time? In that sense, polygamy is only a choice in as much as one must choose to be openly homosexual.

I guess the distinction is actually one of wording; D'rek doesn't mean polygamy, she means polyamory. Bam, now it's not a choice. Polygamy = homosexual marriage. You choose to marry. Polyamory is the correct analogy.

Uh. I think that D'rek meant polygyny. Polygyny is 1 male and >1 female. Polyandry is 1 female and >1 male. Polygamy is >2 people in a marriage. Monogamy is marriage between 2 people, although most people in my part of the world assume that "monogamy" == 1 male & 1 female and that "polygamy" is 1 male > 1 females.

Illy otoh seems to be could be using polygamy as polyamory or as monogamy. Polyamory as a term has nothing to do with marriage.

[Silencer]

Gnaw, on 18 August 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

Silencer, on 17 August 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Illuyankas, on 17 August 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

The difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygamy is a choice.

Interesting take. I'm not sure I disagree, but to borrow an argument from homosexuality; "You can't help who you love." - does this not apply to loving more than one person at the same time? In that sense, polygamy is only a choice in as much as one must choose to be openly homosexual.

I guess the distinction is actually one of wording; D'rek doesn't mean polygamy, she means polyamory. Bam, now it's not a choice. Polygamy = homosexual marriage. You choose to marry. Polyamory is the correct analogy.

Uh. I think that D'rek meant polygyny. Polygyny is 1 male and >1 female. Polyandry is 1 female and >1 male. Polygamy is >2 people in a marriage. Monogamy is marriage between 2 people, although most people in my part of the world assume that "monogamy" == 1 male & 1 female and that "polygamy" is 1 male > 1 females.

Illy otoh seems to be could be using polygamy as polyamory or as monogamy. Polyamory as a term has nothing to do with marriage.

Neither does homosexuality.

I was mainly replying to Illy's post; D'rek intended the analogy to be homosexual marriage and polygamy, as those are *legal* issues, however Russia is doing the whole hide-your-gays (slash beat-your-gays) thing, which is why I think the argument in general works better with polyamory; that better fits being discriminated against because of who you are, and fundamentally most people interested in polygamous relationships are, perforce, polyamorous (in theory; in practice this is perhaps less likely to be true). For a Western current affairs issue, sure, polygamy is the direct corollary to homosexual marriage, however before one starts talking about legalizing polygamy, one needs to first talk about accepting polyamory as a viable form of love, and that polyamorous people are just the same as anyone else. Which is why, if we're talking about Russia, who are treating gays like second-class citizens, and actively pursuing legislation against them (never mind any talk of marriage), polyamory is the better comparison.

I think. Though this is probably getting too much play, given its tangential nature. XD

[Gnaw]

Ment, you know the cultures far better than I will ever do so. And I don't disagree with any of what you say.

I am heavily influenced by the political theorist Hannah Arendt. Origins of Totalitarianism, Eichmann in Jerusalem, On the Human Condition, and other works. I'm also familiar with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

From the outside looking in with my background and biases (everybody has them), it really does appear to me as if Russia is being moved back toward totalitarianism. I could easily be doing my own bit of confirmation bias and seeing only what my training has taught me to look for.

Arendt's Reflections On Violence is freely available at the New York Review of Books. It's a bit long and the woman never heard of the concept of "thesis statement" but it's well worth the read. IMHO.

Oh. I don't remember if there's any of it in On Violence, but she also assumes that you have read the classics in the originalc Latin, Greek, and German. So you get a "of course what Kant meant by 'quote in German', he was referring to Socrates 'quote in Greek'.

Arend't Reflections on Little Rock is also a good read for this thread.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 18 August 2013 - 01:01 AM

[Mentalist]

Gnaw, on 18 August 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

Ment, you know the cultures far better than I will ever do so. And I don't disagree with any of what you say.

I am heavily influenced by the political theorist Hannah Arendt. Origins of Totalitarianism, Eichmann in Jerusalem, On the Human Condition, and other works. I'm also familiar with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

From the outside looking in with my background and biases (everybody has them), it really does appear to me as if Russia is being moved back toward totalitarianism. I could easily be doing my own bit of confirmation bias and seeing only what my training has taught me to look for.

Arendt's Reflections On Violence is freely available at the New York Review of Books. It's a bit long and the woman never heard of the concept of "thesis statement" but it's well worth the read. IMHO.

Oh. I don't remember if there's any of it in On Violence, but she also assumes that you have read the classics in the originalc Latin, Greek, and German. So you get a "of course what Kant meant by 'quote in German', he was referring to Socrates 'quote in Greek'.

Arend't Reflections on Little Rock is also a good read for this thread.

Thats a lot of literature to throw at me, given my constantly shrinking free reading time, lol

I'll try to check these out
(though no guarantees how soon.. and making me refer to originals is not good, cuz i'm a dabbler at PoliSci at best, with my "should've been a minor, but my Uni wanted to screw me over for more money"-type education)
For the record, I won't disagree with anyone that Russia's more authoritarian now than during the Bad Old 90s (which is when the "democrats" totally discredited the whole concept in the East), and I don't think the trend'll reverse any time soon. What I often find myself disagreeing with in these types of Russia-related threads is the sentiment that this is happening as a direct contradiction of "what the Russian people want". THAT's the sentiment I'm arguing against. Believe it or not, the ex-KGB guys DO enjoy support of the majority. not 80 or 90 percent, but a solid 65+. And there is currently no viable alternative (whether the current regime will ever allow one to emerge is a different question entirely)

And in this particular example, my point was to simply point out "hey, it's not just just Russia's government, it's the country as a whole that's to blame here. The anti-current-government rhetoric is useless in this particular case "

[Gnaw]

Mentalist, on 18 August 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

Believe it or not, the ex-KGB guys DO enjoy support of the majority. not 80 or 90 percent, but a solid 65+. And there is currently no viable alternative (whether the current regime will ever allow one to emerge is a different question entirely)

And in this particular example, my point was to simply point out "hey, it's not just just Russia's government, it's the country as a whole that's to blame here. The anti-current-government rhetoric is useless in this particular case "

Yeah, I got that your point and mine were crossing paths and headed different places. And I do believe that high of a support percentage.

Arendt is a hard slog even if you have the education she assumes her reader has. Which I most assuredly do not. The Reflections on Violence is excellent. Written in 1968 iirc. (That was one of those weird years you see in history every so often. Things were going to shit just about everywhere. 1848 is another one.)

[Morgoth]

I don't think anyone here has seriously argued that the developments in Russia are not at least tentatively supported by the majority. I even pointed out earlier in the thread that the homosexuality laws are widely supported.

Rather, we are condeming (and rightfully so) the gross violations of human rights and democratic principles going on in Russia. We watch in dismay at Russia regressing back into just another totalitarian crackpot state, with no long term prospects of finding their way back into the civilized world.