Russia - Gay Rights - Sochi Olympics Megathread

[Grenartia]

How can homosexuality (and, by extension, homophobia), which has been proven to be something that happens even in nature (and therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that it existed before civilization existed) be caused by something that didn't exist until only about two centuries ago?

That's like saying that blue eyes are a result of genetic engineering. The whole statement is obviously stupid.

I left Homophobia as a maybe because it is often supported by entrenched elites and It's not natural unlike Homosexuality.

Oh, no, its definitely not natural.

At the same time, its also often supported by the oppressed poor.

It can't be supported by both the oppressors and the oppressed if its a part of class struggle.

[CTALNH]

Now your spouting bullshit.

In no societies has homosexuality been promoted as it is in the West today. My own view is that today's tolerance arises from the class struggles of the 1970s and was seen as a way to divide the labour movement, along with feminism, environmentalism, and all that other middle class tosh.

Says the person who just identified sexual orientations as part of the class struggle.

EDIT: holy shit "promoted"?! Are you living in the same society as I am? Because I'm pretty sure the other week I got called a faggot for walking down the street with long hair and not lauded as some type of androgynous ubermensch.

Yeah promoted got a problem with my assumptions?

[Grenartia]

Says the person who just identified sexual orientations as part of the class struggle.

EDIT: holy shit "promoted"?! Are you living in the same society as I am? Because I'm pretty sure the other week I got called a faggot for walking down the street with long hair and not lauded as some type of androgynous ubermensch.

Yeah promoted got a problem with my assumptions?

Yes. Because they're based on bullshit, and therefore, ARE bullshit.

[CTALNH]

Yeah promoted got a problem with my assumptions?

Yes. Because they're based on bullshit, and therefore, ARE bullshit.

And I say your assumptions are bullshit.

If you cannot provide any kind of constructive though like I did leave.

[Olivaero]

I left Homophobia as a maybe because it is often supported by entrenched elites and It's not natural unlike Homosexuality.

Oh, no, its definitely not natural.

At the same time, its also often supported by the oppressed poor.

It can't be supported by both the oppressors and the oppressed if its a part of class struggle.

And the GOP is supported by large portions of the working class. False class consciousness.

The way I see it it is probably played upon by the entrenched elites more recently as the preconception that it is unnatural is being destroyed by science So whilst it hasn't always been apart of the class struggle it is more so now.

[Olivaero]

Says the person who just identified sexual orientations as part of the class struggle.

EDIT: holy shit "promoted"?! Are you living in the same society as I am? Because I'm pretty sure the other week I got called a faggot for walking down the street with long hair and not lauded as some type of androgynous ubermensch.

Yeah promoted got a problem with my assumptions?

Yes. Yes I do. Because they do not match up with reality.

[CTALNH]

Yeah promoted got a problem with my assumptions?

Yes. Yes I do. Because they do not match up with reality.

The cry me a river and buzz off.

[Olivaero]

Yes. Yes I do. Because they do not match up with reality.

The cry me a river and buzz off.

What an amazing argument.

[CTALNH]

The cry me a river and buzz off.

What an amazing argument.

Because yours was so much better?

[Grenartia]

Yes. Because they're based on bullshit, and therefore, ARE bullshit.

And I say your assumptions are bullshit.

If you cannot provide any kind of constructive though like I did leave.

I did, if you'd bother to read the last few posts I've made in this thread.

[Grenartia]

Oh, no, its definitely not natural.

At the same time, its also often supported by the oppressed poor.

It can't be supported by both the oppressors and the oppressed if its a part of class struggle.

And the GOP is supported by large portions of the working class. False class consciousness.

The way I see it it is probably played upon by the entrenched elites more recently as the preconception that it is unnatural is being destroyed by science So whilst it hasn't always been apart of the class struggle it is more so now.

Indeed.

And I say your assumptions are bullshit.

If you cannot provide any kind of constructive though like I did leave.

I did, if you'd bother to read the last few posts I've made in this thread.

Because I'm such a thoughtful person, I decided to quote the posts I've made where I provided constructive thought. You're welcome.

But of course they are!

I am pro LGBT and even I know that!

How can homosexuality (and, by extension, homophobia), which has been proven to be something that happens even in nature (and therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that it existed before civilization existed) be caused by something that didn't exist until only about two centuries ago?

That's like saying that blue eyes are a result of genetic engineering. The whole statement is obviously stupid.

I left Homophobia as a maybe because it is often supported by entrenched elites and It's not natural unlike Homosexuality.

Oh, no, its definitely not natural.

At the same time, its also often supported by the oppressed poor.

It can't be supported by both the oppressors and the oppressed if its a part of class struggle.

[Wilkshire]

This topic also makes you wonder why China was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics considering their appalling human rights record!

[United Marxist Nations]

I for one, reject the label "Stalinist", as I recognize it for what it is: an ad hominem.

Its not an ad hominem. Its an accurate description of the ideology. Or is calling a white supremacist group that reads Mein Kampf and has tattoos of swastikas "neo-nazis" now an ad hominem as well?

Stalin did a pretty good job, of that, by himself.

Indeed. Stalin is the best argument against Stalinism.

There is absolutely no refutation of Socialism in One Country, it is the correct theory.

Ah, yes, because restricting freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, suppressing "dissidents", purges, gulags, and the like are "correct".

How much are you selling that bullshit for, comrade?

Lrn 2 Marxism-Leninism.

Learn to social democracy and libertarian/market socialism.

1) The ideology is called Marxism-Leninism, and so-called "Stalinism" in no way departs from it, therefore, it is not an ideology of it's own.
2) If that's what you think the theory of Socialism in One Country is, I encourage you to read a fucking book.
3) Maybe I would be a social democrat or a market socialist if I wanted an idealistic ideology that will never be able to achieve its goals, and who's goals are a complete sham.

[Grenartia]

Its not an ad hominem. Its an accurate description of the ideology. Or is calling a white supremacist group that reads Mein Kampf and has tattoos of swastikas "neo-nazis" now an ad hominem as well?



Indeed. Stalin is the best argument against Stalinism.



Ah, yes, because restricting freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, suppressing "dissidents", purges, gulags, and the like are "correct".

How much are you selling that bullshit for, comrade?



Learn to social democracy and libertarian/market socialism.

1) The ideology is called Marxism-Leninism, and so-called "Stalinism" in no way departs from it, therefore, it is not an ideology of it's own.
2) If that's what you think the theory of Socialism in One Country is, I encourage you to read a fucking book.
3) Maybe I would be a social democrat or a market socialist if I wanted an idealistic ideology that will never be able to achieve its goals, and who's goals are a complete sham.

1. Stalinism rolls off the tongue better, and best describes people who support (or would've supported) Stalin.

2. I DID read a fucking book. You know what the title was? HISTORY.

Also, based on history, your "Socialism in One Country" bullshit literally fucking reeks of fascism. Seriously. Add in ethnic superiority, and replace the Russian language with German, and your Stalinism becomes the spitting image of Nazism. It is because of Stalin that the hammer and sickle are viewed with the same contempt in many parts of the world as the swastika. It is because of Stalin that there's a stigma about socialism in most of the western world (despite, quite ironically, that Stalin was nothing more than a fascist posing as a socialist, a wolf in sheep's clothing). Stalin has done more to hinder the cause of worker's rights globally than Joe McCarthy and all the robber barons put together.

3. Inb4 Nordic model.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) The ideology is called Marxism-Leninism, and so-called "Stalinism" in no way departs from it, therefore, it is not an ideology of it's own.
2) If that's what you think the theory of Socialism in One Country is, I encourage you to read a fucking book.
3) Maybe I would be a social democrat or a market socialist if I wanted an idealistic ideology that will never be able to achieve its goals, and who's goals are a complete sham.

1. Stalinism rolls off the tongue better, and best describes people who support (or would've supported) Stalin.

2. I DID read a fucking book. You know what the title was? HISTORY.

Also, based on history, your "Socialism in One Country" bullshit literally fucking reeks of fascism. Seriously. Add in ethnic superiority, and replace the Russian language with German, and your Stalinism becomes the spitting image of Nazism. It is because of Stalin that the hammer and sickle are viewed with the same contempt in many parts of the world as the swastika. It is because of Stalin that there's a stigma about socialism in most of the western world (despite, quite ironically, that Stalin was nothing more than a fascist posing as a socialist, a wolf in sheep's clothing). Stalin has done more to hinder the cause of worker's rights globally than Joe McCarthy and all the robber barons put together.

3. Inb4 Nordic model.

Socialism in One Country is nothing more than the theory that socialism can exist in a single nation and be preserved whilst awaiting for the rest of the world to undergo revolution; how the hell you can equate that with fascism is beyond me.

The alternative to socialism in one country is standing by and waiting for revolution, and not to take the initiative; such an anti-SIOC view is blatantly reactionary and pro-fascist.

[Grenartia]

1. Stalinism rolls off the tongue better, and best describes people who support (or would've supported) Stalin.

2. I DID read a fucking book. You know what the title was? HISTORY.

Also, based on history, your "Socialism in One Country" bullshit literally fucking reeks of fascism. Seriously. Add in ethnic superiority, and replace the Russian language with German, and your Stalinism becomes the spitting image of Nazism. It is because of Stalin that the hammer and sickle are viewed with the same contempt in many parts of the world as the swastika. It is because of Stalin that there's a stigma about socialism in most of the western world (despite, quite ironically, that Stalin was nothing more than a fascist posing as a socialist, a wolf in sheep's clothing). Stalin has done more to hinder the cause of worker's rights globally than Joe McCarthy and all the robber barons put together.

3. Inb4 Nordic model.

1. Socialism in One Country is nothing more than the theory that socialism can exist in a single nation and be preserved whilst awaiting for the rest of the world to undergo revolution; how the hell you can equate that with fascism is beyond me.

2. The alternative to socialism in one country is standing by and waiting for revolution, and not to take the initiative; such an anti-SIOC view is blatantly reactionary and pro-fascist.

1. The way Stalin "attempted" it is little more than fascism wearing one of those Groucho Marx glasses/nose combinations.

2. OR, keeping one country TRULY socialist (and not that fascist shit Stalin, and to a lesser extent, his successors, had), and fighting (through legal means) for the same type of socialism in all other countries.

[United Marxist Nations]

1. Socialism in One Country is nothing more than the theory that socialism can exist in a single nation and be preserved whilst awaiting for the rest of the world to undergo revolution; how the hell you can equate that with fascism is beyond me.

2. The alternative to socialism in one country is standing by and waiting for revolution, and not to take the initiative; such an anti-SIOC view is blatantly reactionary and pro-fascist.

1. The way Stalin "attempted" it is little more than fascism wearing one of those Groucho Marx glasses/nose combinations.

2. OR, keeping one country TRULY socialist (and not that fascist shit Stalin, and to a lesser extent, his successors, had), and fighting (through legal means) for the same type of socialism in all other countries.

If you plan on trying to establish socialism through the ways that the bourgeois created, it shouldn't surprise you that those rules benefit the bourgeois; and the bourgeois, being anti-socialist, will not allow it.

[Grenartia]

1. The way Stalin "attempted" it is little more than fascism wearing one of those Groucho Marx glasses/nose combinations.

2. OR, keeping one country TRULY socialist (and not that fascist shit Stalin, and to a lesser extent, his successors, had), and fighting (through legal means) for the same type of socialism in all other countries.

If you plan on trying to establish socialism through the ways that the bourgeois created, it shouldn't surprise you that those rules benefit the bourgeois; and the bourgeois, being anti-socialist, will not allow it.

And establishing socialism through illegal means only legitimizes the cause of the bourgeois. If our cause is just, and the oppression real, then surely, then OUR cause will be legitimized if we stick to legal means of affecting change. Its how shit like labor unions, 5 day work week, and minimum wage happened in America.

[United Marxist Nations]

If you plan on trying to establish socialism through the ways that the bourgeois created, it shouldn't surprise you that those rules benefit the bourgeois; and the bourgeois, being anti-socialist, will not allow it.

And establishing socialism through illegal means only legitimizes the cause of the bourgeois. If our cause is just, and the oppression real, then surely, then OUR cause will be legitimized if we stick to legal means of affecting change. Its how shit like labor unions, 5 day work week, and minimum wage happened in America.

Nothing more than concessions; do you really think that Ho Chi Minh would have gained Vietnamese independence without revolution? The bourgeois literally created and operate the state; it is the means for controlling and keeping in check the working class. How is doing the only thing available going to strengthen the cause of the bourgeois? Why should we follow the laws that the bourgeois literally made(!)? Such a view is objectively pro-fascist.

[Bundabunda]

1. The way Stalin "attempted" it is little more than fascism wearing one of those Groucho Marx glasses/nose combinations.

2. OR, keeping one country TRULY socialist (and not that fascist shit Stalin, and to a lesser extent, his successors, had), and fighting (through legal means) for the same type of socialism in all other countries.

1. So what about Hoxha? A person who did try to build Socialism in One Country? In Albania, on Stalin's example no less, private ownership of land actually decreased. They were closer to communism than anything, and yes, including Scandinavia.

2. Your argument seems too emotionally grounded to be taken seriously. Do you want to try and explain Stalin's failures, in the very least?

Such a view is objectively pro-fascist

And in the long term, defeatist. Vietnam likely would have stayed a colony under the French today, soaked in massive poverty and all.
One can't work in the bourgeois confine when the bourgeois confine itself is diametrically opposed to their interests. Voting your way out of oppression has never worked. That's about the equivalent of saying the Democrats are a workers' party.

[Furlainia]

if thats what they think they are not communist... communism is equality for all this isnt equality therefor they are not real communist

[United Marxist Nations]

1. So what about Hoxha? A person who did try to build Socialism in One Country? In Albania, on Stalin's example no less, private ownership of land actually decreased. They were closer to communism than anything, and yes, including Scandinavia.

2. Your argument seems too emotionally grounded to be taken seriously. Do you want to try and explain Stalin's failures, in the very least?

Such a view is objectively pro-fascist

And in the long term, defeatist. Vietnam likely would have stayed a colony under the French today, soaked in massive poverty and all.
One can't work in the bourgeois confine when the bourgeois confine itself is diametrically opposed to their interests. Voting your way out of oppression has never worked. That's about the equivalent of saying the Democrats are a workers' party.

You need to fix your quote, as it gives me as the person you're replying to. It's okay, the quoting mechanic on this forum isn't very good (no disrespect to the creator of it).

[Grenartia]

And establishing socialism through illegal means only legitimizes the cause of the bourgeois. If our cause is just, and the oppression real, then surely, then OUR cause will be legitimized if we stick to legal means of affecting change. Its how shit like labor unions, 5 day work week, and minimum wage happened in America.

Nothing more than concessions; do you really think that Ho Chi Minh would have gained Vietnamese independence without revolution? The bourgeois literally created and operate the state; it is the means for controlling and keeping in check the working class. How is doing the only thing available going to strengthen the cause of the bourgeois? Why should we follow the laws that the bourgeois literally made(!)? Such a view is objectively pro-fascist.

Revolutions purely for the sake of revolutions is arguably just as reactionary.

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. would've set in motion a process that ended in racial equality and tolerance in America through violent revolution against the State? Do you think Gandhi would've achieved of India from the UK by advocating bloody revolution against it?

Both examples prove that it is, in fact, TOTALLY POSSIBLE to achieve social change through peaceful means, even when the system is rigged against your cause.

[United Marxist Nations]

Nothing more than concessions; do you really think that Ho Chi Minh would have gained Vietnamese independence without revolution? The bourgeois literally created and operate the state; it is the means for controlling and keeping in check the working class. How is doing the only thing available going to strengthen the cause of the bourgeois? Why should we follow the laws that the bourgeois literally made(!)? Such a view is objectively pro-fascist.

Revolutions purely for the sake of revolutions is arguably just as reactionary.

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. would've set in motion a process that ended in racial equality and tolerance in America through violent revolution against the State? Do you think Gandhi would've achieved of India from the UK by advocating bloody revolution against it?

Both examples prove that it is, in fact, TOTALLY POSSIBLE to achieve social change through peaceful means, even when the system is rigged against your cause.

That view entirely ignores the multitude of movements that did use violent means, as for Gandhi, let me leave you with this:

“As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.”
– George Orwell

[Bundabunda]

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. would've set in motion a process that ended in racial equality and tolerance in America through violent revolution against the State?

If racial equality exists in America, I guess I could be hands and singing Kumbaya. Friskings in New York, 75% of the stops are black. Sikhs are more likely to get a "random evaluation" just for their religiously mandated turban. Has MLK wiped out racism? Of course not. I don't even need to mention how inner cities are hubs of intergenerational poverty. It's actually worse now than it was before MLK. So don't bring in your middle class, liberal mind set without living in the real world.

Do you think Gandhi would've achieved of India from the UK by advocating bloody revolution against it?

I beg you to pick up something on the history of UK. Their empire was falling fast, and their crown jewel was the first of their losses. The reason? India wasn't economically viable anymore, not because a man drank his own piss.