Bay 12 Games Forum

the heterosexuals were so evil they banned any public mention of sex in USSR

any public display of sexuality - any sexuality - was considered indecent there

you can't explain that

Sorry, but that statement has its own meme.

I don't know about the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community during the Soviet Union, tbh.

But that is not the situation atm, I assume.

Quote from: Knit tie on January 10, 2015, 07:02:45 pm

Also, what does QIA+ stand for?

Queer, intersex, asexual, and plus means a truckload of other sexual identities discovered by people on tumblr.

Right, they are not real, they just exist on tumblr.

Because apparently everything rights related is just a fever dream of people that post on tumblr.

I'm always amazed at how heterosexuals can so easily invalidate and toss aside other peoples' gender and sexuality, without even considering that they will never have to experience the same thing.

Comrade, the best fights are not won easily. I'm not even saying you should protest in the streets, that shit is dangerous, fuck that.

I'm saying there are probably more subversive ways you can provide support. I am sure that goes for a host of rights issues.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:54:08 pm

That is not the current state of things nor will it ever be (plus that seems fairly oppressive.)

It's just a way of dismissing the problem.

It's not even about your own personal issues with PDA. It's about the injustices targeted directly at the LGBTQIA+ community.

They can't even speak out about the things happening to them, they can't provide support for LGBTQIA+ youth or form counseling services or try to help each other in any way due to this law. Forget holding hands.

Either my history knowledge sucks, or such attitude was a thing in 19th century - keep it private, whoever you are.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:50:44 pm

Quote from: Sergarr on January 10, 2015, 06:45:59 pm

being russian is already dangerous in russia m8

"I have problems too" is not a good justification for anything.

Apply that to gays first.

Why apply it to gays first? You have the least problems of a society that distributes problems amongst everyone. And you are also the one making the statement in the first place.

You history knowledge is incomplete. Being gay has always involve stigmatization and oppression.

Having to deal with your own burdens does not exempt you from giving a shit about others, tbh.

edit: the law says any of that is propaganda. They have to keep silent, so yea they can't speak out. And you guys yourselves have specifically talked about the stigma attached to homosexuality, unless, of course you staid in the closet.

Queer Intersex and Asexual.

That is not the current state of things nor will it ever be (plus that seems fairly oppressive.)

It's just a way of dismissing the problem.

It's not even about your own personal issues with PDA. It's about the injustices targeted directly at the LGBTQIA+ community.

They can't even speak out about the things happening to them, they can't provide support for LGBTQIA+ youth or form counseling services or try to help each other in any way due to this law. Forget holding hands.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:23:49 pm

Quote from: Vilanat on January 10, 2015, 06:20:59 pm

No, what i am saying is that you are fear mongering and that the chances of something serious happening to Muslims/Arabs is far less likely than something serious happening to Jews or Policemen. i would be far more scared being a Jew or a police officer in France right now than being a Muslim Arab, that's for sure.

actually, you are fear mongering as well.

What I am saying is, taking time to be concerned about only the white majority is a dangerous view. Feeling that harm that might come to a marginalized, brown skinned, minority is of less consequence (in the face of strong examples, including the death of an infant and the assault of a pregnant woman) is extremely dangerous and represents what I saw happen in America.

For the record, none of our responses were good or just, and none of them were worth it.

There are multiple minorities in France and not all of them are brown skinned or have islam for their religion. There have been no armed assaults by the white-ish majority on the minorities. There are tens of millions of people capable of, say, striking a mosque, yet there have been none. However, a certain minority group has people joining terrorist groups abroad literally in the thousands and those individuals have been radicalized, and they possess a very real threat to everyone, not just majority. But since the majority are infidels to them, they are a more clear target even if the purpose of attacks would be to just inflict terror.

That said, even the local religious authorities of that certain minority has condemned the latest terrorist attacks, as have most of the countries with an islamic majority around the globe. We all know that, and nobody has suggested that somehow every single individual of that majority in France is a potential terrorist. One of the goals of such strikes is exactly further polarization and increase of tensions between various minorities and the majority, they don't care if people sharing sharing their language, skin color, culture or many aspects of faith will suffer. Everyone will suffer. They're Jihadists.

This is so incredibly racist I'm just going to repost it as it is. This is the kind of thing I fear. This is where you are headed.

Do white french people never commit crimes in France? We have a lot of mass killers here, and when they are white men they are lone wolves and mentally ill. When they are Muslim they are terrorists and extremists.

Christianity has brought so much suffering and oppression to our country, but no one expects christians to apologize for abortion clinic bombersor the KKK.

The double standards the first world possesses is terrifying.

I assure you, there are plenty of minorities and the majority as well that contribute to terror. What group do you think the neo-nazis in France are composed of?

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:23:49 pm

actually, you are fear mongering as well.

What I am saying is, taking time to be concerned about only the white majority is a dangerous view. Feeling that harm that might come to a marginalized, brown skinned, minority is of less consequence (in the face of strong examples, including the death of an infant and the assault of a pregnant woman) is extremely dangerous and represents what I saw happen in America.

For the record, none of our responses were good or just, and none of them were worth it.

Am i?! i don't think so. i was merely responding to your post about "The most dangerous thing now is..!" by saying: "Nope, the most dangerous thing is still.."

I am also concerned about the jewish minority, which is quite brownish, and evidently, far more likely to be targeted in france these days.

not just by terrorists, but the neo-nazi fringe these acts have riled and empowered.

This fear hurts everyone that isn't white.

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:32:28 pm

Quote from: Comrade P. on January 10, 2015, 06:29:10 pm

Quote from: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:25:29 pm

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together. Think about it, collectivist.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

It's a hypothetical, suspend your belief, no one gets to snuggle together for warmth (or dig into the snow)

Look do you want this toasty gay person fire to happen or not?

The point is, (and I am not really a collectivist, people just keep calling me that,) it will not hurt you or your rights for gay people to have equal representation.

If there is a voiceless and politically weak group in your society, one that exists peacefully and causes harm to no one by virtue of their existence, don't they deserve the rights everyone else enjoys? Isn't that worth fighting for?

Quote from: Knit tie on January 10, 2015, 06:30:51 pm

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desires of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

I'm not sure what the desires of the majority are. I see what the politicians have done, but I don't live in Russia to know how people feel about it.

Nobody enjoys the right of expressing their sexuality in public in Russia.

Letting these people do this would be a breach of equality and thus, not allowed.

"these" people.

Can you kiss your loved one, or hold hands? No one is talking about fucking in public. Basic shows of affection, or hell, just not being stereotypically masculine or feminine based on your gender/