Communists and Socialists, what do you think of homosexuals?

[Lyttenburg]

Antiquated for whom? And if I won't stop, then what?

For everyone, I personally have never heard or seen that word until you brought it up.

If you don't stop, then I suppose you will continue deliberately throwing native english speakers off when talking about homosexuality.

"Native english speakers" on this forum and in other places shorten "Vladimir" to "Vlad" all the time, and, despite the fact that THIS is grammatically wrong, it is also unpunishable.

So?

[Othelos]

For everyone, I personally have never heard or seen that word until you brought it up.

If you don't stop, then I suppose you will continue deliberately throwing native english speakers off when talking about homosexuality.

"Native english speakers" on this forum and in other places shorten "Vladimir" to "Vlad" all the time, and, despite the fact that THIS is grammatically wrong, it is also unpunishable.

So?

When did I ever say that it should be punished? All I am saying is that you are using the wrong word for the context.

It's like writing 'your' when it should be 'you're'.

[Lyttenburg]

When did I ever say that it should be punished? All I am saying is that you are using the wrong word for the context.

Only it is not wrong - it's you not liking it.

[Page]

Homophobia is one of many forms of bigotry through which the ruling class divides the people. Homophobia is unsocialist in principle and the Stalinists and the like who say otherwise should know they've already been exiled from our struggle by the rest of us.

Also I guess I'm a Trotskyist of sorts though not a hardline adherent to any specific ideology.

[Aurulie]

Eh, I'm kinda against it, but I kinda support it because I'm pro-life and someone needs to adopt.

[Othelos]

When did I ever say that it should be punished? All I am saying is that you are using the wrong word for the context.

Only it is not wrong - it's you not liking it.

No, it is wrong. A word with the suffix -ism refers to some type of an ideology, or is used to form action nouns on verbs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism

Following this, a homosexual cannot 'have homosexualism' or 'experience homosexualism', because that is grammatically incorrect. 'Homosexual' is neither an ideology, nor a verb. So again, it's like saying 'your' when you should be using 'you're'.

I don't care if you don't like homosexuals or whatever, but if you are using words to deliberately confuse people or throw them off, it's obnoxious.

[Lyttenburg]

Only it is not wrong - it's you not liking it.

No, it is wrong. A word with the suffix -ism refers to some type of an ideology, or is used to form action nouns on verbs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism

Following this, a homosexual cannot 'have homosexualism' or 'experience homosexualism', because that is grammatically incorrect. 'Homosexual' is neither an ideology, nor a verb. So again, it's like saying 'your' when you should be using 'you're'.

I don't care if you don't like homosexuals or whatever, but if you are using words to deliberately confuse people or throw them off, it's obnoxious.

It's been already discussed previously. "-ism/ist" suffix is also present in such words that have nothing to do with ideology like "protagonist", "antagonist" ,"dramatist", "bigamist" and many, many others.

And, no, I have no bad feelings to the homosexualists.

[Othelos]

No, it is wrong. A word with the suffix -ism refers to some type of an ideology, or is used to form action nouns on verbs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism

Following this, a homosexual cannot 'have homosexualism' or 'experience homosexualism', because that is grammatically incorrect. 'Homosexual' is neither an ideology, nor a verb. So again, it's like saying 'your' when you should be using 'you're'.

I don't care if you don't like homosexuals or whatever, but if you are using words to deliberately confuse people or throw them off, it's obnoxious.

It's been already discussed previously. "-ism/ist" suffix is also present in such words that have nothing to do with ideology like "protagonist", "antagonist" ,"dramatist", "bigamist" and many, many others.

And, no, I have no bad feelings to the homosexualists.

Ok? I never mentioned words that end with -ist.

and wtf is a homosexualist? No one is promoting homosexuality.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, it is wrong. A word with the suffix -ism refers to some type of an ideology, or is used to form action nouns on verbs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism

Following this, a homosexual cannot 'have homosexualism' or 'experience homosexualism', because that is grammatically incorrect. 'Homosexual' is neither an ideology, nor a verb. So again, it's like saying 'your' when you should be using 'you're'.

I don't care if you don't like homosexuals or whatever, but if you are using words to deliberately confuse people or throw them off, it's obnoxious.

It's been already discussed previously. "-ism/ist" suffix is also present in such words that have nothing to do with ideology like "protagonist", "antagonist" ,"dramatist", "bigamist" and many, many others.

And, no, I have no bad feelings to the homosexualists.

And like I told you before, nobody recognized that word in English because nobody has even heard of it before.

You're just reinforcing my prediction nobody will understand jack shit of what you're saying and they will jump in to correct you.

[Grenartia]

1. I've explained before how it is a real example of what I'm talking about.

1. Nope. There is no Russian word for "get disappeared (in political sense)". 2. While the "homosexualism" is a real word with the real meaning.

2. Yes. Do you? Us native speakers are telling you that the word you are using is grammatically incorrect in the context with which you're trying to use it. I know my language better and more intimately than you do.

3. I have answered them. Be as intellectually dishonest as you like, it doesn't change the fact that I've answered the questions.

3. Cut this High and Mighty act, will you, oh, "native English speaker"?

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics.

- da Wikidorkia.

In the quote that I've provided Farn said that

Those are all legitimate definitions of the word. The word "homosexualist" does exist, it just hasn't been used lately.

4. so, nothing "grammatically wrong" with it.

But, 'cmon! Insist all you want. But this would be an off-topic.

Maybe you should stop using antiquated words that are awkward.

Antiquated for whom? And if I won't stop, then what?

1. Then explain this (your own words):

or someone "disappeared" you (zastavil ischexnut')

I can't for the life of me figure out any context in which somebody can "disappear you" without it being along the lines of making you an unperson.

2. Except, its entirely imprecise and misleading, leading to great confusion and shitty off-topic discussions like this. You want to avoid this shit? Stop using the wrong word, and start using the right one.

3. The only "High and Mighty acts" here are the one you're imagining I have, and the one you actually have.

4. Except, it is grammatically wrong, for the above reasons, along with the reasons I've already explained to you in the other thread.

For everyone, I personally have never heard or seen that word until you brought it up.

If you don't stop, then I suppose you will continue deliberately throwing native english speakers off when talking about homosexuality.

1. "Native english speakers" on this forum and in other places shorten "Vladimir" to "Vlad" all the time, and, despite the fact that 2. THIS is grammatically wrong, 3. it is also unpunishable.

4. So?

1. Vlad is an acceptable and grammatically correct nickname for Vladimir.

2. Prove it.

3. And...your point being...?

4. The simple fact is, "homosexualism" carries misleading and untrue connotations with it. And the way you are using it is grammatically incorrect, because the context you're using it for, and the context it is supposed to be used for are incompatible.

"Native english speakers" on this forum and in other places shorten "Vladimir" to "Vlad" all the time, and, despite the fact that THIS is grammatically wrong, it is also unpunishable.

So?

When did I ever say that it should be punished? All I am saying is that you are using the wrong word for the context.

It's like writing 'your' when it should be 'you're'.

Exactly.

When did I ever say that it should be punished? All I am saying is that you are using the wrong word for the context.

Only it is not wrong - it's you not liking it.

We don't like it because it IS wrong. Because it is contextually incorrect.

"Homosexualism" is an incorrect a term for homosexuality. A term as incorrect and misguided as you keep insisting "GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA!" is.

And, no, I have no bad feelings to the homosexualists.

Your continued use and misuse of that term indicates and implies otherwise. The word has highly negative connotations and is only ever used (if used at all) in a negative context.

[Lyttenburg]

1. Then explain this (your own words):

or someone "disappeared" you (zastavil ischexnut')

I can't for the life of me figure out any context in which somebody can "disappear you" without it being along the lines of making you an unperson.

Because I've provided a literal translation of the phrase. No one actually in Russia use it in the "political sense". "Zastavit' ischeznut' smb" is used only when some stage magician makes you disappear as aprt of a trick.

2. Except, its entirely imprecise and misleading, leading to great confusion and shitty off-topic discussions like this. You want to avoid this shit? Stop using the wrong word, and start using the right one.

Or - or - I can continue the usage of that word, so much more people here can get used to it. Or Instead of arguing with them just give them link to the previous discussions and the unsucssessful attempt to report me to Moders for its usage

1. Vlad is an acceptable and grammatically correct nickname for Vladimir.

[BEEEP] Wrong! It's acceptable for Vladislav. For Vladimir it's Vova(chka)

We don't like it because it IS wrong. Because it is contextually incorrect.

"Homosexualism" is an incorrect a term for homosexuality. A term as incorrect and misguided as you keep insisting "GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA!" is.

And where did I've said that?

[Grenartia]

1. Then explain this (your own words):



I can't for the life of me figure out any context in which somebody can "disappear you" without it being along the lines of making you an unperson.

1. Because I've provided a literal translation of the phrase. No one actually in Russia use it in the "political sense". "Zastavit' ischeznut' smb" is used only when some stage magician makes you disappear as aprt of a trick.

2. Except, its entirely imprecise and misleading, leading to great confusion and shitty off-topic discussions like this. You want to avoid this shit? Stop using the wrong word, and start using the right one.

2. Or - or - I can continue the usage of that word, so much more people here can get used to it. 3. Or Instead of arguing with them just give them link to the previous discussions and the unsucssessful attempt to report me to Moders for its usage

1. Vlad is an acceptable and grammatically correct nickname for Vladimir.

4. [BEEEP] Wrong! It's acceptable for Vladislav. For Vladimir it's Vova(chka)

We don't like it because it IS wrong. Because it is contextually incorrect.

"Homosexualism" is an incorrect a term for homosexuality. A term as incorrect and misguided as you keep insisting "GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA!" is.

5. And where did I've said that?

1. Fine.

2. Yeah, that underlined bit? NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. I'd have a better chance of getting Russians to unironically embrace the "GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA" line.

3. And? The previous discussions do not, nor will they ever, support your claim (and everybody but you seems to get that fact), and the moderation rulings do not at all mean we can't call you out for misusing words.

4. I was referring to English. Not Russian. See, in English, nicknames are usually made of an identifiable chunk of the name in question. I.E., a string of letters that occur in the name. Vlad has a chunk of Vladimir. Vova does not. I'm sure Russian has the same basic trend, or at least a similar one, but Vova does not work as a nickname for Vladimir in English.

5. The other thread.

Also, I notice that you failed to respond to my other points.

[Naedor]

I am in full support of homosexual rights. There's nothing in actual communist of socialist theory that says anything about homosexuality. The Soviet Union's dislike of them is no different from homophobia in the United States or Iran or where ever. But really, homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing, and criminalising it is an affront to human rights.

[Communal Ecotopia]

It's very sad to me that the left, especially the Communist left, has a wing in the tradition of hatred. I firmly believe all true progressives, from anarchists to socialist and communists must not only encourage tolerance but inclusion and equity (for tolerance is a passive state barely above acknowledgement. Of course, my left-socialism/communism is both heavily rights-based and anarchic in tradition.

[Communal Ecotopia]

And I have a question of my own - why do you, Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskists, Communists and Social-Democrats of all stripes (and shades of Red ) support gay marriage IF, as postulated by Marx and Engels monogamous marriage is a throwback tool of private property arrangement and inheritance laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the ideal communistic society there won't be any private property and, that's why any economic need for maintainig monogamous marriage - as opposed to the groupe one.

P.S. In 1934 American communist Harry White wrote and open letter to Stalin, where he went to a great length comparing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for emancipation of women and fight for equality from the opressed races. Iosif Vissaryonovich (who even in that time was famous for writing inflammatory comments) wrote on the side of thecopy of that article his opinion: "Send to archive. Idiot and degenerate"

I believe in SSM because it is a progressive stepping stone. Do I particularly agree with the idea of marriage? Not really and certainly not under the conditions many socialists and communists of yesteryear wrote. Marriage does have a bad history...women were and, depending on where, are seen as largely chattel as were the proletariat. I don't see marriage functioning that way in the mainstream West today. Times and practices change.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Anarcho-communist, and I would answer that I'm strongly in favor of love.

^ THIS. Of all sorts...

[Communal Ecotopia]

The reasons why people get married nowadays is based on love/emotions, not property.

Yeah-yeah, these sentiments are only good for romantics and teenagers. The reality is always the same.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are substantial differences between the "domestic partnership" or "civil marriage" (or whatever it's called) and proper state recognized "marriage" in things pertaining to inheritance, rights of property and other stuff. Art LGTB activists fighting for the equal "marriage" rights with everything entailed in that or for "domestic partnership" (or whatever)?

Depends on how the domestic partner laws are drawn up. It's not one size fits all here, though, yes, in many cases marriage gives plenty more benefits.

[Manhat]

I have no problem with them at all, love is for everyone!

[Peoples Federations of nirn]

Some Communists such as Guy Hocquenghem have argued that homosexuality is "one of the effects of capitalist sociality" and in the old Soviet Block countries there was a very negative view of homosexuality, (in the Soviet Union it was commonly equated with pedophilia). Others such as the CPUSA have argued that the liberation of gays is a key issue that Marxists must grapple with. As NS tends to be more in favour of gay rights than against it, I was curious as to how the Marxists, Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists, Leninists, Trotskyists, etc., here would weigh up homosexuality according to their ideology. As what some of you would call a 'Zubatovist' I am intrigued with Socialism and Communism.

I'm personally completely in favour of gay rights, as I know many homosexuals and I see no reason why their relationships should be treated as lesser than those of heterosexual couples. So Socialists and Communists, what is your opinion of homosexuality and gay rights?

You would be hard pressed to find a communist or socialist of any tendency(national socialists are not socialists, mind you.) that is opposed to homosexuality
And I believe the homophobia of the soviet bloc had more to do with the general homophobia of the time, coupled with the strange system of social-conservatism that seemed to have been implemented among them stalin/post-stalin

[Communal Ecotopia]

You are a man or a woman. What you do from there is whatever.

Considering that the entire point of Marxism, and by extent socialism and communism, is that 'what you do from there' vis a vis society, class issues, gender issues and the like is entirely the name of the game, mayhaps you're in the wrong ideological camp?

Indeed. Let me quote a stanza of a great left-labor standard rewritten by Dar Williams, one of my favorite modern folk singers (though I don't know whether she'd self-identify as a socialist or communist):

You women who want to be free
Just take a tip from me
And join your hand with a union man (I change this to "join your hand with a union hand")
Into the twenty-first century

As Angela Davis found
We are all-together bound
Let race, and class, and gender join
To stand on common ground.

[Communal Ecotopia]

I also forgot to mention the fact to further prove that homosexuality and communism can work together that there are some rumors that the Greek Communist Guerrilla Aris Velouchiotis was either homosexual or bisexual himself
(Image)
Now this is a guy the gay rights movement should use, he was a badass.

See you and raise you anarcho-communist and proud openly gay man, Daniel Guerin.

[Geanna]

Let them marry etc. Denying people rights based on their sexuality is just as stupid as denying rights based on sex or race. I think you'll find that the vast majority of leftists will agree with me.

I do to say the least.

[Arumdaum]

Homosexuals are just like any other people, aside from sexual preferences.

[Arumdaum]

Let them marry etc. Denying people rights based on their sexuality is just as stupid as denying rights based on sex or race. I think you'll find that the vast majority of leftists will agree with me.

but should marriage exist

[Grenartia]

Let them marry etc. Denying people rights based on their sexuality is just as stupid as denying rights based on sex or race. I think you'll find that the vast majority of leftists will agree with me.

but should marriage exist

I personally fail to see any reason why it shouldn't. There's lots of necessary rights and privileges associated with it that would be difficult or even impossible to protect and provide without some sort of legal recognition of marriage. And even if you could protect those rights and provide those privileges, without legally recognizing marriages, such rights and privileges would be more or less de facto recognition of marriage anyways.