Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

While LGBT+ have a very good chance to be tortured (or even killed) as soon as Russians will see their social network accounts, Biden's focus on LGBT+ looks like a way to get political points at home.

That is exactly what Biden has been doing regarding LGBT+ for the entirety of his presidency.

As opposed to Trump, who shat on LGBT+ for political gain during his presidency?[1]

I know which I prefer, as a human being who wants other human beings to be treated like human beings.

[1] giving him the benefit of the doubt here. He was a cunt in myriad ways, homophobia could easily be a default position for him.

Actually, those are both true.  I dunno why people read venom into my statement about Biden.  When I have venom, I have been quite clear about it. He totally has been pushing LGBT pretty hard for the political points.  Unfortunately, the LGBT issue is a political one, as all issues in the United States are.  That means those against LGBT has solidified in the Republican party and those for LGBT rights have solidified in the Democratic party.

Ironically, some of the newer legislation has radicalized the right.  Women Republicans take great offense at biologically male individuals being allowed into their restrooms, and Republican parents of girls take even greater offense at biologically male individuals being allowed into their girl's restrooms in school.  Yes, it is that petty.

You see, this is why I fucking hate talking American Politics.  While I would like a semi-intelligent discussion, everyone brings in their personal baggage, reads for their team, and attacks.

[EuchreJack]

Hopefully my peers that have actually addressed LGBT+ issues in the United States can clarify this, but I think it bears mentioning:

In the United States, we have much broader First Amendment rights than other countries. 
I am specifically referring to the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Organize.
People are allowed to say the most outrageous things, and our media incentivizes this conduct by repeating only the most offensive things over and over.
This makes our country look significantly worse on LGBT+ issues that other countries, as people are allowed to be vocally awful to their fellow human beings, and our media is free to mention every heinous act (if it chooses to do so).  Because other countries don't have such free information, the United States looks worse.

I'm loath to say this, as it will undoubtedly traumatize some people, but I think people need to know. Below in spoiler is an example of United States Freedom of Speech in action:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If a person says Kill All the Gays, that is protected speech.
It does not call for specific action, so unless it is on a street corner immediately before a riot, it is protected.  The default is that ALL SPEECH IS PROTECTED, thus you need a specific reason to make speech Unprotected.  Arguably, the speech would be Obscene and could be limited, but I doubt anyone is going to "push" it.  And yeah, it would be a push.

If a person says Kill that Person because they are Gay, that is NOT protected speech. 
They can, and often are, arrested for saying that specific threat.

My point is that I dunno if people in the US actually engage in as much violent action against LGBT+.  The fierce discussions over the non-violent stuff sort of makes it clear that violent action won't be tolerated.  So its a culture of fearful safety.  LGBT+ members of American society are going to be subjected to a constant media bombardment of negativity, and maybe discrimination from their employer (LGBT+ rights aren't as solid as other protected classes), but the Cops will arrest anyone that lays a hand on you (again, subject to police biases, where those naturally born female are more likely to receive Police Protection versus those biologically born male).

[wierd]

Not exactly.  "Kill all the gays!" is not protected speech. That kind of thing is covered under HateSpeech laws.

However, "Stop the GAY AGENDA! Protect Family Values!" totally *IS* protected speech.
(It does not matter one iota that the two almost always have very large overlap.)

More to the nitty gritty:

the anti LGBT types out there, will parade the "Stop the GAY AGENDA!" and "Women MUST BE SAFE in their bathrooms!" rhetoric, then push for legislation that basically enforces a kind of apartheid against LGBT people.  As Vector has repeatedly pointed out, these types of people want to pretend that LGBT people are not actually people, or at least, not deserving of legal representation, protection, or rights.  The entire focus of the narrative position is "They dont have a place, and should never have a place in our society!"

This has connotations with the concept of "Social murder."

Since advocating for that kind of position (complete removal) is classified as hate speech, they instead couch it in seemingly more 'moderate' (ahem) language, of "protecting family values". 


This kind of couching is one of the many reasons why the concept of moderateism and centrism has died a horrible, cancerous death in the US.  "moderate" and "Centrist" are associated with the worst kind of double-talking filth, that pretend toward something sensible, but mean the most horrible shit possible.

As an actual centrist, I am very very upset about that.

There isn't shit I can do about it though.

[EuchreJack]

Not exactly. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"Kill all the gays!"

is not protected speech. That kind of thing is covered under HateSpeech laws.

Uh that is not how it works, exactly.
HateSpeech laws don't determine whether or not speech is protected.  Only the US Constitution can determine that.
The laws CAN criminalize speech, and HOPE that they won't be overturned on appeal to one of several appellate courts, ending finally at the US Supreme Court.
They tend to be effective, since few want to risk sitting in a jail cell awaiting Appellate Review of their case.
To be blunt, Appellate Review takes longer than the criminal sentence in most cases.  So most would just admit they did wrong, apologize profusely, and pay a fine.

[EuchreJack]

To be clear, the only reason I'm bringing this up in this thread is because I imagine some LGBT+ people are trying to decide whether or not to flee to the US.
I figured that it would be helpful to understand the situation in the US on this issue towards making that decision.  I'm not here to discuss US politics.

I have little experience with the LGBT+ community, so I feel uncomfortable saying "Really, things are fine in the United States, please immigrate to my country".
But that is in fact what I wish I had the knowledge to say.

[wierd]

Even though technically correct, the anti LGBT people whine and make hissyfits over being "Cancelled" all the time.

Again, as an actual centrist, I am VERY displeased at the appropriation of both sides, trying to *appear* middle of the road, as a tactic to try and convince people that they are "sensible".  The rapaciousness in which this occurs in US politics is such, that there is effectively no actual center remaining in the US-- just charlatans of various stripes. (See also, Manchin, Sinema, and co.)

GONE are the days in which an actually moderate center could bring both extreme parties to the table, and get them to hammer out an agreement on something. 


(I dont know how many times I have gotten into the crossfire of the LGBT issue, for making the clearly hot take that 'maybe 'in your face, fuckers!' type parades (with rather ribald choices of costume and social antics) is not the way to win hearts and minds, any more than say, a "Straight" parade, involving fetish kink (like black leather, whips, chains, and trapeze swings), contrasting victorianesque chastity-centric costume and LARP would--- then get told that I must hate gay people, or that I think gay people are not deserving of being respected and accepted in society.  Nothing could be further from the truth. My position is more "some things being done are not very tactful, and that does not win hearts and minds."  I think gay people are just another kind of ordinary, random person, and should be treated like ordinary, random people, and presented as ordinary random people.)


The reality is of course, more nuanced.

The "extreme display" nature of such parades is not really intended to be "Look! WE SO CRAZY!" (even though it rubs that way to the more moderate people of the country), it is "You cannot silence us or make us go away!" with the volume dialed up to 11. 

The reason why it has to be dialed up to 11, is because the center has been co opted, and trying to reach the center just gets you redirected to either Republican-Lite or Democrat-Lite.

Given the volatile nature of basically all kinds of politics in the US, I would advise the LGBT people fleeing Ukraine to seek placement in more sensible countries that have more sensible politics.  Like in Europe.



This is not because I think they "should be over there", it is because I see the "dry kindling volatility" with radical swings either direction, as "not safe for them."

That is to say, I dont want them to come here, after just having lost loved ones, and their motherfucking homes, cultural identity, et al---- only to have fucking Trump 2.0 (now with EXTRA NAZI!) elected after 2 years, and go through the whole thing ALL OVER AGAIN, only this time, "oh- ALSO "FILTHY IMMIGRANTS!" on top of it all.

They need stability.

The US cannot, with a straight face, lay claim to that.

[martinuzz]

In the United States, we have much broader First Amendment rights than other countries.

You actually don't. That's just some 'America greatest' rethoric, Trump style.
Freedom of speech is more protected in a lot of EU countries.
Our music and films don't say 'beeeeeep' instead of 'fuck', 'cunt' or 'anal'. Or 'kill', or 'murder'. Black rap songs from the '90s also still say 'nigger' instead of 'beep'.*
Parental advisory is nothing more than hard censorship.
People over here googling a song on youtube google it with an added 'uncensored version', because the US (or at least the religious / woke nutter part of it) tries to censor free speech in the whole world.

Compare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GZlJGERbvE (US censored version)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Out on the streets, they call it bilelelelelbleep

with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2S5ZbMDgMg (original version)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Out on the streets, they call it murder

*note that in the '90s, black people did not use 'nigger' as a derogative, they reappropriated it as a badge of honour.

[wierd]

Our Puritanical roots are like pernicious weeds.

Yes.  Sadly.

Over here, most of the population would not be able to handle actually free discussion.

[martinuzz]

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Economic affairs, the civilian costs of the war are at 514 billion euros.
8000km of road has been destroyed, and 10 million square kilometers* of residential buildings have been destroyed.
To rebuild that they will need lots of money from the rest of the world, preferably not in the form of loans, but instead gifts.

* The latter could be a typo by the newspaper, I find that number to be really high. Then again, it is possible if you take destroyed high rise buildings into consideration and count every floor separately

[Il Palazzo]

This is very optimistically assuming those destroyed parts will be a part of Ukraine by the time the war ends.

[McTraveller]

Sorry, I don't lump being able to use profanities on TV as "freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech is also not being able to say "whatever you want."

Freedom of speech in the US Constitution is solely related to being able to openly criticize the government with protections against government reprisal.  I've never considered this to be a subtle point, but apparently it's lost in the noise.

Contrast with countries where, even recently, laws are passed that say you can be imprisoned if you disagree with the government.  This is what freedom of speech protects.  Any other claim of application for freedom of speech is a misappropriation.

Now, I'm not saying that people haven't misappropriated the first amendment, because it happens all the time, but the core is that the US government can't lock you up for openly and loudly complaining about the government.  You can't be imprisoned for conspiracy theories or things that go against the party line.  (Now yes, you can be ostracized by your party or the other party or some other group, but there can't* be an official government action against you.)

Side note: I find some solace in the fact that I'm not the only one who thinks that part of the "bad reputation" that the US rightly earns in many cases is due to the fact that we are so open about our vices and collectively have no verbal filter.

*For values of "can't" that are subject to various legal loopholes and other shenanigans.

[martinuzz]

Sorry, I don't lump being able to use profanities on TV as "freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech is also not being able to say "whatever you want."

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

Boohoo boohoo that you don't like curse words, but they too are an integral part of free speech. Do you want to ban all Stephen King novels?

Also, since when are 'murder' or 'kill' curse words?

Compare "the colonists murdered the majority of Indians" with "the colonists beeped the majority of beeps", which is basically the same with the Damian Marley song I posted. Marley sang about black rasta minorities being murdered by the police, but omg the word murder, we must censor!

[LordBaal]

Isn't freedom of speech in the US the ability to say whatever you want and not be censured? Like, I could say, "Death to all baseball players" all I want, and no one can censure me BUT freedom of speech also doesn't magically protect me of the implications of my speech. That's it, I can still go to jail if I'm advocating to kill someone else or whatever.

In short, does it mean you can be an asshole and no one can force you to shut up about it, but you still can suffer the consequences of being a asshole?

[Strongpoint]

Russian state TV editor interrupts live news broadcast with anti-war message

Here's a link to the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCy_S5lxs-c

)

For many years, she worked on a channel that spread fascist propaganda including demonization of Ukrainians but now... *Yawns*

And now this "hero" promotes lifting actions from Russia ( https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1508201460487659528 )

It was so bloody obvious that the propagandist is just doing her job as ordered

[Lord Shonus]

In the United States, we have much broader First Amendment rights than other countries.

You actually don't. That's just some 'America greatest' rethoric, Trump style.
Freedom of speech is more protected in a lot of EU countries.
Our music and films don't say 'beeeeeep' instead of 'fuck', 'cunt' or 'anal'. Or 'kill', or 'murder'. Black rap songs from the '90s also still say 'nigger' instead of 'beep'.*
Parental advisory is nothing more than hard censorship.
People over here googling a song on youtube google it with an added 'uncensored version', because the US (or at least the religious / woke nutter part of it) tries to censor free speech in the whole world.

Uh, you are aware that the bleeps are only for the over-the-air radio broadcasts of music and over-the-air TV broadcast of films, aren't you?

If you buy an album (except at WalMart), you get the "uncensored version" of the song. Nobody goes into a movie theater and watches a movie full of bleeps and blurred-out Bad Stuff. Those are added due to the FCC placing the exact same type of watershed restrictions on OTA broadcast channels as many European countries. Including the Netherlands. Most networks prefer to make all their stuff watershed safe because of time zones (some of the national networks prefer to have all their affiliates broadcast programming at the same time, so a post-watershed broadcast in New York can be pre-watershed in LA) and to make syndication more profitable (because a show that can be slotted in anywhere you have dead space instead of just the most profitable time blocks), but that's not a censorship issue.

There are issues with advertisers also policing content because it affects the reputation of their products, but that's not a censorship issue. There are also issues with the MPAA or ESRB rating systems being gamed to maximize profit , but that's also not a censorship issue. Never mind that the only legal consequence of not getting your media rated is that you can't put a ESRB/MPAA rating sticker on it - you can not be arrested, fined, or otherwise officially penalized in any way - any government ban on media or legal enforcement of a rating system is illegal outside of extremely narrow circumstances. The practical consequence of a higher/lower rating is greatly affected sales, and not getting rated significantly narrows your market opportunities because most distribution networks like the ratings, but that's not censorship.

What would be censorship is if the ratings were government mandated, media could be outright banned and criminal charges could be brought for violating them. You know, like many European countries have.

Or, in short, the "censorship" you describe is not only far more mild than you seem to think it is, it is also not all that different from the European norm.