Russia passes more homophobia laws

[Zoraptor]

I wish sometimes the west would hold the west to its own standards of human rights. Don't see much 'boycott USA' stuff over Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or Collateral Murder or Drone Mediated Extra Judicial Killings or NSA Dragnets. The thing about being holier than thou (as Fry is being in the quote) is that if you don't live up to the principles yourself then you end up looking a hypocrite. In this case Russia is just an easy target for the lazy, guaranteed to get coverage and a 'bad guy' as opposed to Qatar, a 'good friend' even if they're objectively worse by a large margin.

 

(FTR the russian law is stupid pandering, and Fry is still awesome)

[Hurlshort]

There are plenty of people in the US protesting what the US does on a regular basis.  Gitmo, Drones, and the NSA received a huge amount of flak in the public eye.  You even have congressmen speaking out against this stuff.  The trouble is they need a majority to enact change.

[alanschu]

 

 

No, what I tried to convey is there are many, maybe "better," reasons to ban a country from having Olympics other than not accepting gays.

 

That may be so.  Though that's a bit of a red herring, since the fact that there may be better reasons to ban a country doesn't mean anything if the original reason being discussed is still applicable.  Though I am pretty ambivalent to the idea of banning Russia or moving the Olympics since I doubt it'd accomplish much and in general, as stated, the Olympics represents a time when the world seems to hate each other a bit less (in most cases...).

 

 

 

 

"Lol gay activists and their sense of entitlement. They think accepting homosexuality are the pinnacle of mankind achievement or something, and you're somehow condemned if you don't like them. Funny how that fits the definition of bigotry."

 

The definition of bigotry:

 

From Wikipedia:

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

 

Merriam-Webster:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "

 

Dictionary.com

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race "

 

 

So I suppose that maybe Dictionary.com can be applied.  Though the idea of being "intolerant" of those that are intolerant of you is pretty specious application of the term "bigot."  It's akin to saying (Godwin time!) that a Jew would be a bigot for disliking the Nazi's based on their beliefs.  Except that the beliefs are directly persecuting oneself.

 

 

As such, I contend that a gay person that dislikes people for their intolerance of gays is not a bigot, lest you wish to concede that you yourself are a bigot for being intolerant of those that are intolerant towards others that are intolerant of them (naturally, I'm willing to concede that this makes me a bigot as well! )

 

 

 

 

I don't have problems with accepting gays, I have a problem with people labeling it as the most important thing ever, ignoring other issues.

 

Who is doing this at the moment?

[licketysplit]

I'm glad Obama told Putin to go sit in the corner with his dunce hat. That's what he deserves at this point. Unless Vlad wants to ride horses with his manly chest hair on full display. That cancels out everything. 

[exodiark]

That may be so.  Though that's a bit of a red herring, since the fact that there may be better reasons to ban a country doesn't mean anything if the original reason being discussed is still applicable.  Though I am pretty ambivalent to the idea of banning Russia or moving the Olympics since I doubt it'd accomplish much and in general, as stated, the Olympics represents a time when the world seems to hate each other a bit less (in most cases...).

 

Thing is, I don't put homophobia as something unique to ban a country. If UK got away with helping USA in Iraq War, then I see no reason why Russia can't get away with homophobia. Don't get me started on China. They are all no better and no worse for me, which is why I disagree with banning Russia just because they don't like gays.

 

Who is doing this at the moment?

 

 

Maybe I am, but my comments are intended to address OP's supporting Stephen Fry comment, until it got blown out of proportion.

The first comment was supposed to be small sidenote, commenting gay activism and Olympics instead of homophobic law in Russia, commenting on what OP wrote instead of the topic OP proposed. But folks picked it up and, as a good-willed forum resident, I should engage them until they are satisfied.

Edited August 10, 2013 by exodiark

[Walsingham]

Thing is, I find many gay activists behave like Mr. Fry, so might as well

or maybe I was just bored and trolled, subtrolling Obsidian forums generates relatively well-mannered responses.

 

Ah. The old "I just failed so now you guys are all sub-****" response. Nice.

[exodiark]

 

Thing is, I find many gay activists behave like Mr. Fry, so might as well

or maybe I was just bored and trolled, subtrolling Obsidian forums generates relatively well-mannered responses.

 

Ah. The old "I just failed so now you guys are all sub-****" response. Nice.

 

Well, I'm sorry if my comments are not to your liking. I simply don't put Iraq debacle above or below homophobia.

[Walsingham]

 

 

Thing is, I find many gay activists behave like Mr. Fry, so might as well

or maybe I was just bored and trolled, subtrolling Obsidian forums generates relatively well-mannered responses.

 

Ah. The old "I just failed so now you guys are all sub-****" response. Nice.

 

Well, I'm sorry if my comments are not to your liking. I simply don't put Iraq debacle above or below homophobia.

 

 

And I'm profoundly sorry that you seem intellectually satisfied with that.

[exodiark]

There are plenty of people in the US protesting what the US does on a regular basis.  Gitmo, Drones, and the NSA received a huge amount of flak in the public eye.  You even have congressmen speaking out against this stuff.  The trouble is they need a majority to enact change.

Was it ever the majority?

I mean, Obama promised to shut Gitmo down, and the majority elected him. And now the Gitmo is still running and funded.

[Hurlshort]

 

There are plenty of people in the US protesting what the US does on a regular basis.  Gitmo, Drones, and the NSA received a huge amount of flak in the public eye.  You even have congressmen speaking out against this stuff.  The trouble is they need a majority to enact change.

Was it ever the majority?

I mean, Obama promised to shut Gitmo down, and the majority elected him. And now the Gitmo is still running and funded.

 

 

Gitmo is a pretty complicated situation.

 

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/why-gitmo-will-never-close/2/

 

The article really shows how limited the President's power is.

[Volourn]

Bu... that's not what I heard when Bush was Pres. Pres has too much powers, he's  adictator, Bush is gonna be in power for life. L0L

 

Niow.. the whining is 'prez has no power'. L0L

[exodiark]

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of people in the US protesting what the US does on a regular basis. Gitmo, Drones, and the NSA received a huge amount of flak in the public eye. You even have congressmen speaking out against this stuff. The trouble is they need a majority to enact change.

Was it ever the majority?

I mean, Obama promised to shut Gitmo down, and the majority elected him. And now the Gitmo is still running and funded.

Gitmo is a pretty complicated situation.

 

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/why-gitmo-will-never-close/2/

 

The article really shows how limited the President's power is.

I see, I guess things are never that simple...

[Hurlshort]

Bu... that's not what I heard when Bush was Pres. Pres has too much powers, he's  adictator, Bush is gonna be in power for life. L0L

 

Niow.. the whining is 'prez has no power'. L0L

 

I'm not sure if you are referring to me personally, I've always expressed the opinion that the President has a lot less power than people give them credit for.  But with the NSA and Drone strikes, the complaints about the President being Big Brother are as loud as they have ever been.  

 

I've been unimpressed by Bush and Obama.  The last really effective President for me was LBJ.  

[Volourn]

It was a general comment.

[Walsingham]

 

Bu... that's not what I heard when Bush was Pres. Pres has too much powers, he's  adictator, Bush is gonna be in power for life. L0L

 

Niow.. the whining is 'prez has no power'. L0L

 

I'm not sure if you are referring to me personally, I've always expressed the opinion that the President has a lot less power than people give them credit for.  But with the NSA and Drone strikes, the complaints about the President being Big Brother are as loud as they have ever been.  

 

I've been unimpressed by Bush and Obama.  The last really effective President for me was LBJ.  

 

 

I don't agree that Obama has no power. But I would certainly agree if you mean it's only 'soft' power. Presidents are more than capable of exerting influence on a limited policy bandwidth.

 

Provided, you know, they aren't a total ***ing amateur with no chops.

[Raithe]

Also, since you have so many of the opposing team pretty much said "our job for the next few years is to stop Obama from achieving anything" rather then "okay, let's get on with serving the country until we can try again at the next election".

 

Presidents have a certain fuzzy amount of power, it gets a wee bit crippled when he doesn't have a good lock on Congress and the Senate..

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Also, since you have so many of the opposing team pretty much said "our job for the next few years is to stop Obama from achieving anything" rather then "okay, let's get on with serving the country until we can try again at the next election".

 

Presidents have a certain fuzzy amount of power, it gets a wee bit crippled when he doesn't have a good lock on Congress and the Senate..

Very true. Closing down Gitmo would require majority support in the HoR(very unlikely) and 60+ votes in the Senate(also unlikely). Of course it could probably be done if it was tied to a repeal of a certain Act, but I think it is highly unlikely that would be spared a veto.

[Walsingham]

...None of which can have surprised anyone.

 

Promising it under those circumstances is blatant lying. Hardly a change you can believe in or whatever bosh he was selling.

[Zoraptor]

It's also not really much of an excuse, you simply should not have 100+ people that have never been prosecuted and aren't going to be prosecuted locked up for 10+ years. Wringing one's hands about the difficulty of it all says nothing and excuses even less; it should not happen, it should be fixed and it should be made impossible for it to happen again. 

 

And Obama did have a majority of his party in both houses at one point, lest we forget. They just spent that two years as a bunch of utterly spineless jellies, quivering and puling because of those meanie Repubs calling them names.

[Drowsy Emperor]

As usual only Zoraptor and exodiark make sense, the rest are just trying to bully everyone else into their conformism and well tended anti-russian racism.

 

Tolerance died even before the R of Russia appeared in this discussion. People need to keep in focus that Russia, or Putin, or anyone else doesn't need to dance to the tune of whatever is considered hip and modern in a few scandinavian and anglo-saxon countries.  

 

Accept that, and enjoy the olympics.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

It's weird because most here agreed that Russia should still host the Olympics.  We actually have a full consensus on that, so I'm not sure where tolerance died, Bruce was the only one who agreed with Stephen Fry about stripping Russia of the Olympics.

 

It's interesting you use the word tolerance Boo.  There is nothing tolerant about the recent laws that were passed in Russia.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

"As usual only Zoraptor and exodiark make sense, the rest are just trying to bully everyone else into their conformism and well tended anti-russian racism."

 

Someone who is pro Putin shouldn't be  whining about bullies, conformism, and racism.

 

NEWSFLASH: Being anti Putin and his cronies doesn't make one anti Russian any more than being anti Bush makes one anti white or Amerikan or being anti Obama makes one anti black or anti Amerikan. LMAO

[Walsingham]

Boo's just hurting because a few anglos are stopping him kicking off the next Crusade. The only surprise to me is that he's also threatened by men kissing.

[ShadySands]

If anything they should do something about all the mullets and rat tails that are rampant in Russia

[Drowsy Emperor]

Actually, I've been kissed by a man, have you? Pointless comment is pointless.

 

The laws in Russia are made to target propaganda, and that propaganda isn't just about channeling money into gay rights but into other avenues as well, many of them working directly against the Russian state. The whole act is as much about pleasing Putin's voting base as it is about stopping foreign influence in domestic politics, because most NGO's are nothing more than a vehicle for influence from some country or other.

 

Besides, russian society (like almost all societies in the world) is overwhelmingly against Pride parades and open displays of homosexuality. It would be political suicide to insist on it, which is why only fringe politicians (who collect their paychecks from foreign embassies) can afford to do so.