Thread: Controversial Problems in Russian and Some Other Societies

On Gay Priests, Pope Francis Asks, ‘Who Am I to Judge?’


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/europe/pope-francis-gay-priests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

This is very interesting since the Moscow Duma was the one that was refusing to pass anti-gay legislation.
Boris Moiseev | The Disorder Of Things
Russia: Moscow region rejects anti-gay bill / Russia / Country-by-country / Guide to Europe / Home / ilga - ILGA Europe

Also, it's easy to just say "State Owned" or "Government Controlled". But the truth is that the Dumas contain hundreds of deputies - each one having his own views - and legislation has to be passed with a vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma
Russian parliament passes bill that imposes fines for gay pride rallies, info sharing | Fox News

I do think the 436-0 vote is a little suspicious but I'm also kinda suprised to learn that the regional Moscow Duma was so much more opposed to the anti-gay bill.
It just looks like the Moscow Duma was supporting the "gay" TV programming while the Russian Parliament was not. A political split.
Now I'm curious. How much do decisions in regional Dumas affect what happens in the Russian Parliament?

"...each one having his own views" Who cares? What matters is what the government decides to implement. I would even debate whether 'each' has their own view. Not the ones with ties to the party.

My point is the 'anti-gay' bill is really redundant when you note what kind of TV programming they put out. The suggestion that 'most Russians' ignore it or don't get swayed by the propaganda is really irrelevant to the point. Although, I am not disputing it at all and good for them. I didn't criticize Russians in those posts or say they were getting 'brainwashed' although I suggest it could be influencing a great number. Maybe people here like Hanna never talk to Russians outside this site but I do and I come across others. Take a look at facebook and vk pages and tell me they don't watch that stuff. A lot of the media is delivering 'western style' propaganda and considering the population, it only has to reach a proportion of the population.

However, my point wasn't even any of that. I was illustrating the hypocrisy of this theme and the 'fake' stance that the Government was taking. It's not a 'political split' as you put it. It's delivering two conflictory messages. It's a political ploy 101. Say two different things simultaneously. What I wanted to do is show to those sympathetic to Putin and 'support' the law, that he doesn't care about it at all. The TV programming proves it. Also, I don't care whether there's more private networks in Russia. These are probably operated and owned by Oligarchs and Elites that hold some power. They are probably in Putin's pocket or vice vera. It doesn't really matter.

Hanna made a comment that there's all kinds of various Rusisans, some are 'pro-West' etc. That is probably true but in being 'pro-West', they are being manipulated. It's on purpose. I am glad that many Russians are 'awake' to all this.

Interesting. This is more confirmation of the hypocrisy and brainwashing by the Russian government (see Putin). Implement a bogus law and then promote the brainwashing and indoctrination via TV programming.

For the people here (probably Americans who might not know), this video is from Channel One Russia, which is owned, operated and controlled by the Government. There's also RTR which is another state-sponsored network (division) which televises the same drivel and 'left-wing' western style indoctrination.

More evidence about the two-faced, hypocritical Putin regime.

I understood "Interesting", and don't understand completely the remaining. What regime? What brainwashing? It was just small detail of whole picture "Life in modern Russia". It has nothing to do with politics. TV channels might think twice how to present the news, but all the other programmes are just for making money. The state does not care what is on TV.
Surprisingly enough though, that today's TV bosses claim they are trying to please the audience, whereas soviet TV bosses did programmes of type they considered suitable. However, in USSR TV content was of great quality, now it is a total crap. Many people get along without TV set.

Ok, so for those of you who are very pro-gay, FINE. To each his own. Gay people have been through some hard times in the past and I can completely understand that some want to show their support.

But honestly, Some countries take it too far. Here is an example, from TODAY'S paper (biggest paper in Sweden).

Header "The embassy in Moscow does not want to raise the gay pride banner"
Ambassaden i Moskva vill inte hissa prideflaggan - DN.SE

Summary of the story: a large national organisation was proposing that the Swedish embassy in Moscow should raise the HOMOSEXUAL rainbow flag, instead of the regular Swedish flag.
This would be to mark a protest against Russia's supposed discrimination of gay people.
Apparently the Swedish embassy in Kosovo (!?) had previously done this, because Kosovo too, apparently discriminates against gay people. So they want the Moscow embassy to do the same thing.

How ridiculous, rude, childish and unproductive is this idea?!
Fortunately the embassy staff in Moscow did not entertain this idea.

I can't believe that media even writes about it, but this "Russia-discriminates-against-gays" theme is a never-ending saga. They have yet to give a seriously disturbing example with actual testimony.

And if they MUST consider these types of manifestation, why not start in Saudi Arabia where they stone homosexuals to death!? Or perhaps Afghanistan, Kenya, Nigeria etc....

So I hope that this example illustrates that I some countries simply go too far in their pro-homosexuality agenda. They offend other countries and religions that don't appreciate this lifestyle. They should respect the law of the land in other countries and not imagine they know what's best for other countries.

They offend other countries and religions that don't appreciate this lifestyle. They should respect the law of the land in other countries and not imagine they know what's best for other countries.

Here we go again... How many times does it have to be said that it's people who decide what their lives will be, not some "culture" or "system" or "country"?! What kind of totalitarian fascist does one have to be to assume otherwise? Moderators, I hope you keep track of such intolerant statements here, and take appropriate measures...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Here we go again... How many times does it have to be said that it's people who decide what their lives will be, not some "culture" or "system" or "country"?! What kind of totalitarian fascist does one have to be to assume otherwise? Moderators, I hope you keep track of such intolerant statements here, and take appropriate measures...

I think your English skills are letting you down a bit Eric. I was referring to COUNTRIES not homosexual people, which seems to be how you understood the sentence.

My point is that it is a ridiculous notion for the Swedish embassy (representation of Sweden in Russia) to do a pro-homosexuality manifestation, by raising the rainbow flag. Russia's laws on homosexuality is an internal matter for Russia and it seems the majority support them.

If they did indeed do a manifestation like that in Kosovo it is quite shocking.

Likewise the death penalty in the USA is revolting to most people in Sweden. But nobody is proposing that the Swedish embassy in Washington D.C. should start doing manifestations against that. It would be both rude and meddling, not to mention the fact that neither the USA nor Russia could care less by any manifestations by a country the size of Sweden.
As incomprehensible as it is, Americans apparently support that, and it's their own country, so their business.

I can't believe that media even writes about it

I too. Obviously, no important problems remained in your country.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

I too. Obviously, no important problems remained in your country.

There are problems, allright. It's just that they choose to fill media with this kind of stuff. You literally can't open a paper in Sweden without reading about the latest politically correct ideas, i.e:

• Homosexuality is a great lifestyle (and anyone who doesn't agree is an discriminatory homophobe)
• "Multicultural society" is great, i.e. mass immigration from the MIddle East and Africa (and anyone who doesn't fully agree is a rasist)
• Feminism is the only way; everything should be exactly equal between men and women - they should behave and think exactly the same way (and anyone who doesn't agree is an anti-feminist bigot).

I'm sick and tired of being brainwashed about these ideas as soon as I open a Swedish paper.
I have no major issue with either of these things, but I don't like to get ideas stuffed down my throat and be forced to agree with the latest ideas or be labelled a reactive fascist.

The UK has somewhat better spread among media and their opinions. Not all papers have the exact same view on everything and I appreciate that a lot here.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think your English skills are letting you down a bit Eric. I was referring to COUNTRIES not homosexual people, which seems to be how you understood the sentence.

My point is that it is a ridiculous notion for the Swedish embassy (representation of Sweden in Russia) to do a pro-homosexuality manifestation, by raising the rainbow flag. Russia's laws on homosexuality is an internal matter for Russia and it seems the majority support them.

If they did indeed do a manifestation like that in Kosovo it is quite shocking.

Likewise the death penalty in the USA is revolting to most people in Sweden. But nobody is proposing that the Swedish embassy in Washington D.C. should start doing manifestations against that. It would be both rude and meddling, not to mention the fact that neither the USA nor Russia could care less by any manifestations by a country the size of Sweden.
As incomprehensible as it is, Americans apparently support that, and it's their own country, so their business.

I just read what's been typed down; if someone wants to doubt my reading skills, they're strongly advised to first take a look at their writing skills

What I meant is, the "don't mess with other countries/don't tell other countries what to do, etc." attitude is utterly failing, as countries are nothing without people; and just because some people in some country prefer one particular lifestyle doesn't mean everyone who lives there will stick to it; now, if a country abuses its powers and tells PEOPLE what to do, or suppresses them in any possible way, that country should be told what to do, and it will (hopefully) eventually be told what to do, and forced to do so if needed; by all this, I don't mean the sexual orientation issue, or the feminism issue, or anything like that in particular, but the general concept of civil liberties and human rights; people don't serve countries, it's the other way around.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I just read what's been typed down; if someone wants to doubt my reading skills, they're strongly advised to first take a look at their writing skills

What I meant is, the "don't mess with other countries/don't tell other countries what to do, etc." attitude is utterly failing, as countries are nothing without people; and just because some people in some country prefer one particular lifestyle doesn't mean everyone who lives there will stick to it; now, if a country abuses its powers and tells PEOPLE what to do, or suppresses them in any possible way, that country should be told what to do, and it will (hopefully) eventually be told what to do, and forced to do so if needed; by all this, I don't mean the sexual orientation issue, or the feminism issue, or anything like that in particular, but the general concept of civil liberties and human rights; people don't serve countries, it's the other way around.

So answer this, which is the logical follow-on from your reasoning:

• Who is to say what values are right or wrong in any particular country or culture, if not the citizens of that country, or their government?
• On what authority should another country have the ultimate say? Biggest army? Most widespread culture? Most moral or religious country? Most ideologically pure country?
• Which country in your view is the ultimate authority on what's right or wrong for other countries?
• Which country should shut up and change their laws and culture to comply?
• Or are you saying that every country start issuing judgement on all other countries with different cultures or values to themselves?

(stupid question really, you never answer any direct questions so 100-1 you'll ignore this one, answer something entirely unrelated or make a personal insult towards me. Will give you ONE chance though, until I go back to ignoring you.)

How ridiculous, rude, childish and unproductive is this idea?!

So I hope that this example illustrates that I some countries simply go too far in their pro-homosexuality agenda. They should respect the law of the land in other countries and not imagine they know what's best for other countries.

Umm, seems to me that a certain Swede on this board was thoroughly happy to lecture OTHER COUNTRIES on how awful and backward it is to have just one official national language. (And the Latvians, as far as I know, weren't preparing to impose criminal fines on people who "promoted Russian to minors" -- they just didn't want to subsidize the Russian language.)

this "Russia-discriminates-against-gays" theme is a never-ending saga. They have yet to give a seriously disturbing example with actual testimony

"Disturbing" to whom? Carrying a sign like this on a public street can now, in theory*, get you a 5000-ruble fine throughout Russia (Photo is a couple years old, and AFAIK, the guy -- activist Nikolai Alekseev -- already got the same fine under the St. Petersburg law. Though I understand that foreign sympathizers chipped in with money, and he didn't have to pay out of his own pocket, at least:



I'd imagine that Russian gays consider it "seriously disturbing" that saying the phrase Я нормальный человек where children might overhear you is now banned propaganda...

*P.S. However, I understand the point that no one knows whether the new law will be actively enforced, and I agree that the Swedish gesture was rather stupid, and that calls to "boycott Sochi" are insane overreactions. (I'd note that the US had laws against consensual sodomy until 2003, but the very reason that it took so long to strike down these laws is that they were practically never enforced -- which meant there was no "legal standing" to challenge them.)

Originally Posted by Hanna

So answer this, which is the logical follow-on from your reasoning:

• Who is to say what values are right or wrong in any particular country or culture, if not the citizens of that country, or their government?
• On what authority should another country have the ultimate say? Biggest army? Most widespread culture? Most moral or religious country? Most ideologically pure country?
• Which country in your view is the ultimate authority on what's right or wrong for other countries?
• Which country should shut up and change their laws and culture to comply?
• Or are you saying that every country start issuing judgement on all other countries with different cultures or values to themselves?

1. This one's incorrect, because in civilized countries every person is entitled to having their own system of values that can be different as much as they like from what might be offered by the government, etc., as long as it's ok with the law;

2. A country can do that provided:

a) There's a real problem indeed in the country that's being decided on;
b) The country that decides is flawless in the matter it's taking a decision about;
c) The country that decides can reasonably ensure carrying out its decision on the offender country;

3. See items b) & c) of item #2

4. See item a) of item #2

5. See items ##2-4

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Umm, seems to me that a certain Swede on this board was thoroughly happy to lecture OTHER COUNTRIES on how awful and backward it is to have just one official national language. (And the Latvians, as far as I know, weren't preparing to impose criminal fines on people who "promoted Russian to minors" -- they just didn't want to subsidize the Russian language.)

Re Latvia: This is regional politics between two neighbouring areas with a very long and complex relationship and not a comparable situation. The Baltic states now want to be part of the Scandinavian/Nordic group of countries. I.e. they essentially want to be Scandis, like us in Scandinavia.

Fine, but if they want to join us, they should take similar view on not discriminating on the basis of language. We have a very long history of getting over language discrimination in Scandinavia and it was solved to everyone's satisfaction, more or less, about a hundred years ago.

If the Balts stop trying to be "Nordic" they can do what they like. I only object to them saying "we are like you", attempting to be part of the Nordic group and then engaging in language discrimination, which we reject. If they allied themselves with some other area, I would care considerably less.

Let's stick to the topic though, instead of attacking me personally and ignoring my questions. I'm not in the habit of digging up your old posts and launch a vendetta against you, because we have different opinions, so would you show me the same respect, please? Thanks.

P.P.S. At least this recent controversy produced an excellent one-liner:

Парадокс: Российский парламент запретил "пропаганду гомосексуализма", а в правительстве сидят одни п*доры!

Which you could politely translate as:

"It's ironic that the Russian Parliament has banned 'homosexual propaganda', since 99% of what the government does and says is so TOTALLY GAY."

Though more literally and vulgarly, сидят одни п*доры is better translated as "it's filled with nothing but c*cksuckers." (In US English slang, "c*cksucker" isn't always literal -- sometimes the meaning is more like паршивый козёл, without any reference at all to orientation.)

By the way, can anyone point me to political analyses IN RUSSIAN of what the real, practical effects of the recent "No Promo Homo" law might or not be? (Preferably by a legal expert who is neither a pro-gay nor an anti-gay activist -- much of the coverage I've seen in the US has had the tone of "the sky is falling!")

And I've found plenty of news stories in Russian, but none that offered good legal analysis of what the law's language ACTUALLY MEANS (perhaps because no one knows!), or predictions of how strictly the law will be enforced.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Umm, seems to me that a certain Swede on this board was thoroughly happy to lecture OTHER COUNTRIES on how awful and backward it is to have just one official national language. (And the Latvians, as far as I know, weren't preparing to impose criminal fines on people who "promoted Russian to minors" -- they just didn't want to subsidize the Russian language.)
"Disturbing" to whom? Carrying a sign like this on a public street can now, in theory*, get you a 5000-ruble fine throughout Russia (Photo is a couple years old, and AFAIK, the guy -- activist Nikolai Alekseev -- already got the same fine under the St. Petersburg law. Though I understand that foreign sympathizers chipped in with money, and he didn't have to pay out of his own pocket, at least:

I'd imagine that Russian gays consider it "seriously disturbing" that saying the phrase Я нормальный человек where children might overhear you is now banned propaganda...
*P.S. However, I understand the point that no one knows whether the new law will be actively enforced, and I agree that the Swedish gesture was rather stupid, and that calls to "boycott Sochi" are insane overreactions. (I'd note that the US had laws against consensual sodomy until 2003, but the very reason that it took so long to strike down these laws is that they were practically never enforced -- which meant there was no "legal standing" to challenge them.)

The US still has issues with sodomy. 13 States still have anti-sodomy laws and Louisiana is still trying to enforce theirs.
One State Is Still Enforcing Its Anti-Sodomy Law - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

And some States (including mine) use other methods to deal with the gay issue. They include beatings, bullying, and suicides. If you want to see what happened at the gay parade in Russia, just enroll in middle or high school in the USA. It gets really scary sometimes.
Ohio Bully Beating of Gay Student Caught on Cell Phone - ABC News
Anti-Gay Bullying: Does Silence = Death? | Oklahoma Observer

That first link is just one case but trust me, there's tons more and a lot of them never even get reported, period.

So maybe if it was illegal to have parades or even talk about being gay, then maybe a lot of kids would still be alive.
I mean, I don't care if somebody's gay and it's not a huge issue. They're just people like everybody else and a lot of them like metal and alternative rock so that's pretty cool. But there's way too many kids that aren't as tolerant as I am.
The point is, it's people that cause the real damage, not laws. And Russia probably doesn't have any more violence against gays (well, at school anyway) than America does. Gays will still be persecuted and even killed till the attitudes change and the laws can't change that. Only people can.

About the No Promo Homo thing. I thought that was just Tennessee. I haven't heard very much about it here so it must just be in the public schools?

Ummm.. This post was an accident. I made one post and somehow it posted twice. Sorry.

practical effects of the recent "No Promo Homo" law might or not be?

I can only suggest that fate of the law will be like many others: it will be forgotten in a few months.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

By the way, can anyone point me to political analyses IN RUSSIAN of what the real, practical effects of the recent "No Promo Homo" law might or not be? (Preferably by a legal expert who is neither a pro-gay nor an anti-gay activist -- much of the coverage I've seen in the US has had the tone of "the sky is falling!")

I could only think of one practical use of this law: if you ban gay parades in Russia you would decrease raising numbers of broken jaws and ribs.
I mean what's the sacred point of gay parades anyway? I don't get it. I feel like these parades inhabited by exhibitionists rather than gays.
I also think that any public actions of sexual nature(including gay parades) are in fact sexual harassment to the society. And sexual harassment cannot be considered as acceptable, in my view.
I mean if you are a gay - fine. But don't stick your genitals to the faces of other people.
Go to Vegas, rent a place and stick it to the faces of people who give a damn. AEE does it, so should gay people do, if they so fond of their parades.

Originally Posted by Doomer

I could only think of one practical use of this law: if you ban gay parades in Russia you would decrease raising numbers of broken jaws and ribs.
I mean what's the sacred point of gay parades anyway? I don't get it. I feel like these parades inhabited by exhibitionists rather than gays.
I also think that any public actions of sexual nature(including gay parades) are in fact sexual harassment to the society. And sexual harassment cannot be considered as acceptable, in my view.
I mean if you are a gay - fine. But don't stick your genitals to the faces of other people.
Go to Vegas, rent a place and stick it to the faces of people who give a damn. AEE does it, so should gay people do, if they so fond of their parades.

Я здесь в Чикаго ни на какие парады никогда не ходила и не пойду. Неинтересно. Если б мне не пришлось случайно увидеть фотографии с Mardi Gras, Key West или с Гей Pride парадов, не предствляла бы такое.
Так что, если не хочешь, никакие гениталии не увидишь.
А в детстве помню на русских пляжах все мужчины в малюсеньких плавках были. Вообще не смущало, вроде так и надо. Никто и не знал, что нужно возмущаться или пялиться. Чегой-то вдруг чьи-то гениталии стали диковинкой?

Вот первое, что нагугливось, всё напоказ и никого не волнует: