# Forum About Russia Society  RT coverage on gay rights in Russia

## Deborski

Gay rights in Russia: Facts and Myths — RT News 
I am actually impressed with RT's coverage of this issue. Considering that it is a state-funded Russian news organization, they actually do a good job of covering the story fairly and accurately. Soviet news agencies were notoriously biased and would have been blasting everyone with lies and propaganda to cover up the reality of the situation, but RT has done a good job of balancing their reporting here. 
Certainly RT is more "fair and balanced" than FOX "news" is.

----------


## Hanna

I am not going to say anything more on the topic of pride parades and what not.... 
However I agree with you on RT. They are going from strength to strength for sure. I am honestly grateful to Russia for providing this excellent channel. It's got great British news anchors and some really cool American characters hosting some of the shows.  
Can you believe, the BBC practically IGNORED the NSA revelations, and the GCHQ spying for America story. 
And pretty much everything around Snowden. And I can't stomach the beeb's coverage of the conflicts in the Middle East. 
RT behaves like any modern state TV channel in my view -- obviously they are not going to go blatantly against a pronounced state decision but they certainly report critically from Russia, including on government affairs, and I'm sure they'd have debate programs where everybody can say what they have to say. I think that took place for the last 5 years of the Soviet Union as well, so I don't know what you are comparing with.  
I never really watched Soviet TV in those days, apart from a few limited occasions a. However I watched a fair bit of East German TV. Honestly I can't remember thinking it was propaganda. All it was, was that they essentially choose to see the world through "Red glasses" as we used to say. So if there are two alternative ways of looking at some world event, they picked the one that fitted with their ideological outlook, and they sometimes ignored news that were negative.  
Most countries had only state TV back in those days, so everyone was in the same boat. Actually, the USSR, as far as I remember, had more channels than for example Sweden. Not to mention lots of satellite channels! (strange really, did people in the USSR really have satellites, or how did that work..) And most Eastern European programming was not political, just good quality culture, special interest and kids stuff.  
But a while ago, I was staying in a hotel and was pretty shocked that there were ADS on RT?!  How did that happen? It was almost impossible to watch, there was an ad every 10 minutes or so. 
Does Russia have a TV License system to pay for the state channels, or how are they financed?

----------


## Doomer

> According to a survey conducted shortly after the gay propaganda law was passed by Levada, 76 percent of Russians support it.

 The people have spoken
Russians are not ready to accepts gays to the society

----------


## Deborski

> RT behaves like any modern state TV channel in my view -- obviously they are not going to go blatantly against a pronounced state decision but they certainly report critically from Russia, including on government affairs, and I'm sure they'd have debate programs where everybody can say what they have to say. I think that took place for the last 5 years of the Soviet Union as well, so I don't know what you are comparing with.

 When I was in the USSR, I worked for State TV (Lenteleradiokomitet) and had friends working at TASS, and I was really not impressed with their objectivity although I could see improvements.  When press is censored for so long, objectivity is almost impossible because reporters are afraid to deviate from the party line.  They were starting to head in that direction, but there was still a sense that true objectivity was only just beginning to evolve. 
RT - in my opinion - is quite objective and that was the point I was trying to make by posting about its coverage on what is probably the most controversial subject I could think of in Russia at the moment.  Certainly they made every effort to include the side of the protesters, and they did not cover up the actual violence which has been going on:   

> Official statistics show that there were 12 homophobic attacks last year, though activists at Moscow’s sociological NGO Sova Center says that these numbers are almost meaningless, as assaults are rarely reported, and almost never recorded as hate crime incidents. 
> A 23-year old was murdered in Volgograd in May when he came out to a group of drinking partners during a celebration. The group proceeded to stuff beer bottles into the man’s anus, cut off his penis and then smashed his head with a rock. 
> On Friday, a resident of Voronezh city was sentenced to two months of corrective labor after being convicted of assaulting Pavel Lebedev, a member of a picket against the law banning the promotion of homosexuality. The judge found the young man guilty of kicking Lebedev in the stomach during the January 20 picket. 
> Gay activists claim there has been a sharp spike in violence against homosexuals in the past few weeks, saying that the new law gives homophobic gangs carte blanche to attack conspicuously-gay individuals, in the name of “upholding the law”. But exact numbers are impossible to collect reliably.

 As far as modern state TV goes, I would even go so far as to say it is more balanced than corporate-sponsored journalism - provided it exists in a country where the journalists are not being constantly threatened and intimidated.  Once that happens, it loses credibility. 
The majority of corporate-sponsored journalism lacks true objectivity these days which is one of the reasons I got out of the field after being a television reporter for more than a decade and working as a journalist for 15 years.   
In the United States, there was a massive scandal in the mid 2000's when a pair of reporters at FOX news tried to report the truth about Monsanto and were shut down.  The government even passed laws making it perfectly legal for news media to LIE on TV, which was previously not allowed.    Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug | Institute for Responsible Technology | 
We also lost our "fairness in broadcasting act" some years previously, which prevented such a limited number of corporations from owning ALL existing media outlets.  Currently we have in the US what amounts to a corporate monopoly on national network news.  http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi...ness-doctrine/ 
In my personal experience as a reporter, I myself was censored.  One time, I did an expose on a car dealership which was selling car alarms that did not work.  I had the guy admitting to it on camera.  But that story never saw air because the car company contacted the TV station's general manager and threatened to pull their $100,000 advertising account.  The General Manager came down to the newsroom and made an announcement that the story would not run, because he could not afford to lose what was effectively a large portion of our newsroom's operating budget at the time.  That was just a local story.  At the network level, this happens to a degree that I doubt most Americans even realize.  Massive advertisement budgets, billions of dollars, are what run corporate news programs and this is why the corporations are not exposed by the mainstream media. 
As much as Americans fear "state controlled TV," they seem largely unaware of how much control corporations exert over newsmedia.  The scope and scale of it is immense.  Yet many Americans continue to believe that "liberals" control our press, which is really no longer the case. 
Corporate-run media also fails to properly investigate stories, since the focus is really on ratings and coverage is more about entertaining people, doing nonstop LIVE coverage even when it isn't necessary, so that reporters do not have the time to properly investigate their stories or follow-up on what they are reporting.  Political press conferences turn into a dog-and-pony show where reporters may as well just read the press releases verbatim, since they rarely ask more probing questions.

----------


## Eric C.

Deb, I personally think pure live coverage of stories is good, because I want to draw my own conclusions from what I see, be the investigator myself; I would pay a certain amount to one who was the first to direct a camera at some thrilling stuff going on so I could see it, but I would give no dime to one who would decide what's good and what's bad for me.

----------


## Deborski

> Deb, I personally think pure live coverage of stories is good, because I want to draw my own conclusions from what I see, be the investigator myself; I would pay a certain amount to one who was the first to direct a camera at some thrilling stuff going on so I could see it, but I would give no dime to one who would decide what's good and what's bad for me.

 You can't investigate "what you see" when the FACTS which need to be investigated are not even reported, Eric.  Proper investigative journalism still allows you to draw your own conclusions but it EXPLORES the issue and presents all the information so that you can made an informed decision.  LIVE for the sake of LIVE is NOTHING but a reporter talking out of his ass.

----------


## maxmixiv

We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second  :: 
But is was more than enough: if First broadcast not very interesting stuff at the moment, you could immediately switch to Second (one-touch action!) The worst possible situation that did occur: some interesting was on BOTH channels! And nothing could be done to "replay" missed programme, because most households had only one TV set, and 0 videorecorders. 
Also, having 2 programmes, not 102 made it fairly easy to track most wanted programmes. Simply there was detailed list for the next week in local newspapers. 
Never heard about receiving TV off satellites until 1990s.

----------


## Deborski

> We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second 
> But is was more than enough: if First broadcast not very interesting stuff at the moment, you could immediately switch to Second (one-touch action!) The worst possible situation that did occur: some interesting was on BOTH channels! And nothing could be done to "replay" missed programme, because most households had only one TV set, and 0 videorecorders. 
> Also, having 2 programmes, not 102 made it fairly easy to track most wanted programmes. Simply there was detailed list for the next week in local newspapers. 
> Never heard about receiving TV off satellites until 1990s.

 I remember there being three - but that was already 1991.  I'm not sure which number I worked for LOL - it was just Leningrad TV, and later it was changed to Channel 5 I think, if I am remembering correctly.

----------


## Hanna

> When I was in the USSR, I worked for State TV (Lenteleradiokomitet)

  I think the fact that you were there (as an American, during the Cold War) shows they were more open minded than I thought!  
I doubt ANY American TV channel invited people from the USSR to work for them, unless the person was a defector being interviewed. I would imagine this was during glasnost etc, but still! 
It's really interesting to hear that you did this! What was your job there? What did people in the USA think about you going there? They must have thought it very radical!

----------


## Hanna

> We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second 
> But is was more than enough: if First broadcast not very interesting stuff at the moment, you could immediately switch to Second (one-touch action!) The worst possible situation that did occur: some interesting was on BOTH channels! And nothing could be done to "replay" missed programme, because most households had only one TV set, and 0 videorecorders. 
> Also, having 2 programmes, not 102 made it fairly easy to track most wanted programmes. Simply there was detailed list for the next week in local newspapers. 
> Never heard about receiving TV off satellites until 1990s.

 About the ground TV. Hm, maybe it varied from place to place? It must have been more than two because I distinctly remember thinking 'they have more channels'. I only visited Leningrad and Latvia though. Never went anywhere else in the USSR and it was only in Leningrad that I was able to check the TV channels; it was at a youth hostel 
Yeah, it wasn't so bad really with the 2 channels which we had in Sweden. They put A LOT of time into deciding the kind of programming to put on, so quite often there was actually something good on, despite the lack of choice. Since everybody watched the same stuff, you could talk about it. Sometimes it was actually embarrassing if you hadn't seen something that everyone else watched.  
Due to the mixed political situation in Sweden at the time, you could have a gruesome rememberence programme about US atrocities in Vietnam on one channel, and "Dallas" or "Miami Vice" on the other. Followed by some super-artsy Eastern European film where the action moved at 1 km/h...and then a cheezy German soap. The home produced stuff was considered a bit provincial.   *But they had the objective of educating and informing people. They were really committed to high quality and culture*, even if everybody did not agree with their interpretation of what was worthwhile.. 
Now, it's just "whatever will bring in the most viewers, let's just show it!". Tasteless and not in the best interest of society, in my opinion. *The lowest common denominator will rule, and people's worst instincts will guide the programming until its nothing but sex, violence, prejudice and propaganda.*  
About the satellites: I don't know, but I remember from ca 1985, as a kid, several of the houses on my street installed a satellite dish. They were hoping to get German TV and were angry that all they could get was stuff in Russian.*  I remember that the channels were called "Gorisont 1, 2"* etc and it was definitely Russian-speaking; no subtitles. Remember watching a bit of it at a friends' despite not understanding any of it. The whole reason (rich) people got satellites back then, was that they wanted commercial TV with American/German content, so it was kind of funny in an ironical sense that all they could actually pick up, was Soviet TV. Later it changed, of course, as Scandinavia got its own satellite.   

> Proper investigative journalism still allows you  to draw your own conclusions but it EXPLORES the issue and presents all  the information so that you can made an informed decision.  LIVE for the  sake of LIVE is NOTHING but a reporter talking out of his ass.

 *What a good quote.* I did one term of media studies at university and LOVED the topic but I never pursued it. Such a competitive field...  But that was just as TV was changing fast, beyond recognition in my neck of the wood. I was totally blown away by CNN at first, but obviously started to notice that sometimes they were just covering things for the sake of it, and ended up repeating themselves, stating the bleeding obvious or essentially wasting time, just to be able to say the coverage was "live".

----------


## Deborski

> I think the fact that you were there (as an American, during the Cold War) shows they were more open minded than I thought!  
> I doubt ANY American TV channel invited people from the USSR to work for them, unless the person was a defector being interviewed. I would imagine this was during glasnost etc, but still! 
> It's really interesting to hear that you did this! What was your job there? What did people in the USA think about you going there? They must have thought it very radical!

 Well, I've been writing about the whole thing right here at MR, in the blog section LOL 
It was a very unusual experience, really one of a kind.  I was employed by the Soviet government and I worked in Television there.  I was a consultant and I helped develop some programs and advertisements.  My primary project was a dating game show called Найди Меня.   
When I returned to the US, most people were uninterested in the experience.  Others called me a "communist" and some resented me for going there to help "the Russians," insisting I should only help "my own people."  I had a letter of recommendation from the President of the Lenteleradiokomitet, who was a personal friend of Yeltsin, but it meant nothing in the US.  Less than nothing, really.  I ended up having to start my career all over again from scratch, and I worked my way through the ranks of local TV news as a field reporter, covering crime and other beats in the US.  I finally left the business when I became too disgusted with the state of newsmedia in America.   
For a long time, I stopped even talking about Russia because I got so many negative comments whenever I tried to bring it up.  Mostly people laughed at me or called me a communist, although I never was a member of the communist party, nor was I affiliated with any political party in Russia.  I lost touch with my friends in Russia.  It is a long and complicated story.  But a couple years back we all reconnected, thanks to Facebook, and I decided to go back to studying Russian with the hopes of potentially teaching English in Russia one day. 
The current propaganda laws there have me concerned, however.  I am not gay, but I have many friends who are and I support their rights in the US.  I am worried that if I returned to Russia, I would be arrested for simply speaking my mind.  I find the ambiguity of the "propaganda" laws very concerning, really.  Not that I want to launch into this subject.  There is a lot which I love about Russia, but I think since I lived there as long as I did, I also came to hate some things about it, just as there are things I hate about my native country, the US. 
I did teach some English classes when I was in the USSR, although it has been so long ago that I need a refresher on how to teach again.  I am currently studying for my TEFL cert, just in case. 
I consider myself a global citizen, and I am very open minded about all cultures and all people.  The only thing I have no tolerance for, really, is hatred, oppression, cruelty, and greed.

----------


## Deborski

> What a good quote. I did one term of media studies at university and LOVED the topic. It was just as TV was changing fast, beyond recognition in my neck of the wood. I was totally blown away by CNN but obviously started to notice that sometimes they were just covering things for the sake of it, and ended up repeating themselves, stating the bleeding obvious or essentially wasting time, just to be able to say the coverage was "live".

 I can't count the number of times I performed live shots on the eleven o'clock news, standing in front of absolutely NOTHING.  A closed building.  The location where something had happened hours ago.  Just for the sake of having that stupid LIVE graphic plastered on the screen.  It was all about ratings, not journalism, ultimately.

----------


## Paul G.

> We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second

 Now we have 1000 channels but all of them are merely crap. 
P.S. You forgot about 5th channel, it was Leningrad TV. By the way, it's the oldest channel in Russia.

----------


## maxmixiv

Leningrad  could have its own channel and it did  http://www.5-tv.ru/about/ 
Omsk and many other cities could issue their own short programmes too, but had to do it by inserting into Second's frequency (time share)

----------


## Hanna

> Well, I've been writing about the whole thing right here at MR, in the blog section LOL 
> It was a very unusual experience, really one of a kind.  I was employed by the Soviet government and I worked in Television there.  I was a consultant and I helped develop some programs and advertisements.  My primary project was a dating game show called Найди Меня.   
> When I returned to the US, most people were uninterested in the experience.  Others called me a "communist" and some resented me for going there to help "the Russians," insisting I should only help "my own people."  I had a letter of recommendation from the President of the Lenteleradiokomitet, who was a personal friend of Yeltsin, but it meant nothing in the US.  Less than nothing, really.  I ended up having to start my career all over again from scratch, and I worked my way through the ranks of local TV news as a field reporter, covering crime and other beats in the US.  I finally left the business when I became too disgusted with the state of newsmedia in America.   
> For a long time, I stopped even talking about Russia because I got so many negative comments whenever I tried to bring it up.  Mostly people laughed at me or called me a communist, although I never was a member of the communist party, nor was I affiliated with any political party in Russia.  I lost touch with my friends in Russia.  It is a long and complicated story.  But a couple years back we all reconnected, thanks to Facebook, and I decided to go back to studying Russian with the hopes of potentially teaching English in Russia one day. 
> The current propaganda laws there have me concerned, however.  I am not gay, but I have many friends who are and I support their rights in the US.  I am worried that if I returned to Russia, I would be arrested for simply speaking my mind.  I find the ambiguity of the "propaganda" laws very concerning, really.  Not that I want to launch into this subject.  There is a lot which I love about Russia, but I think since I lived there as long as I did, I also came to hate some things about it, just as there are things I hate about my native country, the US. 
> I did teach some English classes when I was in the USSR, although it has been so long ago that I need a refresher on how to teach again.  I am currently studying for my TEFL cert, just in case. 
> I consider myself a global citizen, and I am very open minded about all cultures and all people.  The only thing I have no tolerance for, really, is hatred, oppression, cruelty, and greed.

 
Sorry I hadn't read your blog entry I think!  Lately I have been a really slippery fish here - not actively studying Russian right now, but I still like this forum so I pop in and comment... But sometimes I make comments too fast without knowing the full details of why people say what they say! Thanks for explaining! 
Your story makes perfect sense though. How surprising that Soviet TV wanted a dating show! They must have really wanted to change. 
 Maybe we should find a clip on Youtube and see if anyone remembers it!
So they really weren't that high brow then... I mean, many of the state tv channels in Europe really looked down on "cheap" entertainment that was just intended to play to people's basic instincts. It was a kind of cultural elitism, really. I would have thought USSR TV was definitely onboard with that kind of outlook.  
I guess the reaction of your friends in the USA shows that they were so indoctrinated about "evil Russians" that they couldn't really see beyond that. Sad!!! Particularly since the Russians didn't have that outlook on the USA and probably would have been intrigued in a reversed situation. It's also the general expat experience.... Once you return, people don't really understand how you have changed or what your life was life. 
I remember having my fist serious anti-Soviet reaction as a kid when we learnt that USSR media essentially didn't cover Chernobyl initially, even though it was MASSIVE news in the rest of Europe and local people's lives were actually at risk. It really upset me because I was so into environmentalism and I thought the USSR was better than killing a major story just because it was embarrassing. Of course, later it emerged that some horrendous stories had been covered up. But then, nobody knew. Then suddenly, they changed their minds about Chernobyl  I think, and invited foreign media -- maybe it ended up being a bit of an eye-opener to the bosses of the TV in the USSR, as they realised their politics had denied people knowledge and proper coverage of such a monumental event.

----------


## maxmixiv

> You forgot about 5th channel

 I forgot it because it had not been seen in Omsk until recently.

----------


## maxmixiv

Dating shows had appeared suddenly.
(Sorry, quality is awful. Show begin at 4:40)

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Gay rights in Russia: Facts and Myths — RT News
> I am actually impressed with RT's coverage of this issue. Considering that it is a state-funded Russian news organization, they actually do a good job of covering the story fairly and accurately. Soviet news agencies were notoriously biased and would have been blasting everyone with lies and propaganda to cover up the reality of the situation, but RT has done a good job of balancing their reporting here.
> Certainly RT is more "fair and balanced" than FOX "news" is.

 That was a really good article. But the journalist never really answered the question "But why are homosexuals being punished?". They only said how but not why.
And I totally do agree about Fox news. It's just all about political rants. So is USA Today, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc etc. 
But I have a system now. I look for a topic at Reuters. Then I find the same topic at Le Monde, RT, Российская Газета, Pravda, and other sources. And I talk to other people about it like Tosevski. He's always reading stuff in Slovenia. Then I can decide what adds up and what doesn't. But mostly the American media doesn't add up.   

> When I returned to the US, most people were uninterested in the experience.  Others called me a "communist" and some resented me for going there to help "the Russians," insisting I should only help "my own people."  I had a letter of recommendation from the President of the Lenteleradiokomitet, who was a personal friend of Yeltsin, but it meant nothing in the US.  Less than nothing, really.  I ended up having to start my career all over again from scratch, and I worked my way through the ranks of local TV news as a field reporter, covering crime and other beats in the US.  I finally left the business when I became too disgusted with the state of newsmedia in America.  
> For a long time, I stopped even talking about Russia because I got so many negative comments whenever I tried to bring it up.  Mostly people laughed at me or called me a communist, although I never was a member of the communist party, nor was I affiliated with any political party in Russia.  I lost touch with my friends in Russia.  It is a long and complicated story.  But a couple years back we all reconnected, thanks to Facebook, and I decided to go back to studying Russian with the hopes of potentially teaching English in Russia one day.

 That happens now - and even before the Snowden thing. It happens in real life and online. I was trying to defend a Russian newbie at a "Nonsense" forum last winter. I mean, it's not even a serious forum. But I got verbally slammed for doing it and even got warned that I could get banned. The Russian newbie got banned and I didn't see him violate the TOS ever! 
Btw, have you seen all the anti-Russian stuff in the mainstream USA media? I've just been all "Why?". And this journalist in Forbes even suggested that Obama should make serious issues at the Sochi olympics (last 3 paragraphs). Imo, our country needs to stay away from the Olympics if they just want to start drama! Putin the Predictable: Guest Snowden - Forbes 
Well, today is grammar day so I won't be reading much news. But reading the news in Russian - while using the google translator - has helped me to understand how Russian people communicate. There is a huge difference between the way Russians put their thoughts into words and the way we do. But it is getting easier to understand. 
@ Maxmixiv: I was looking at pictures of your city, Omsk, yesterday. It looks really cool and it's not that far north of Baikonur. Do you ever watch the Soyuz launches? Just curious. I've been checking out lots of cities all over Russia.

----------


## Hanna

> Btw, have you seen all the anti-Russian stuff in the mainstream USA media? I've just been all "Why?". And this journalist in Forbes even suggested that Obama should make serious issues at the Sochi olympics (last 3 paragraphs). Imo, our country needs to stay away from the Olympics if they just want to

 It's unbelievable how ignorant, arrogant and prejudiced some of the commentators on US TV sometimes are, and particularly when it comes to Russia.  
It's THEIR loss, though. Who cares? 
If they want to sit on the other side of the Atlantic and hate a country they never visited and don't have the true facts about.... then let them! It's particularly sad though since Russians absolutely seem prepared to give the USA and Americans a chance and some are really positive. Meanwhile Americans with very few exceptions are literally swimming in prejudice.  
On the other hand I think in Europe it's really important that people stop having these Hollywood and FOX inspired ideas about Russia. 
The whole paranoia about defense against Russia, when Russia couldn't care less about Europe from a military perspective. All the slander about the gas/oil situation, like it was somehow Russia's FAULT that it sits on the gas and needs to ship and sell it to Europe, or that Russia has some evil masterplan to use this to hurt Europe. There is no sign of that, yet it's constantly hinted at anyway.  
I hope the Winter Olympics changes things.  
The recent drama about gay rights in Russia is a worry though: Fingers crossed there will be no big gay pride manifestation during the Olympics and Russia overreacting. I think it would be much more dignified if Russia responded to a gay manifestation with a shake of the head and just let them do their thing. I think a lot of people just think it looks stupid and tasteless anyway, but it would be tons worse if the demonstrators were dragged off in handcuffs, and JUST the footage to fit with the prejudice.   

> Putin the Predictable: Guest Snowden - Forbes

 Isn't that magazine the the mouthpiece of the elites in the USA,  essentially? Not popular on this side of the pond at all, but I've come  across it. 
I mean, what they are writing isn't even objectively true! 
And Obama isn't quite aggressive enough in his foreign policy for the journalists at Forbes clearly!  
If  they want to boycott the Olympic games they'll just look like a kid who  has a trauma in the supermarket when he doesn't get the sweets he  wants! 
Didn't they actually boycott the games in Moscow too? I was too young wouldn't have known. Or did they just say they would..? 
What  if every country that had a complaint against the USA had boycotted the  games there? Hardly anyone apart from the UK and a few arab emirates  would have turned up....   *Since they can't find anything  seriously wrong that Russia does, they are blowing this gay thing out of  ALL PROPORTIONS. Don't fall for it, Deborski and others! * I mean, anyone  who wants to worry about gay rights should start in the US allied Saudi  Arabia, just about any gulf state or any country in Africa. All that  Russia does is prevents a parade. Meanwhile in the USA plenty of people  are prevented from demonstrating about other things.  
And in this, I have to say that Sweden is worse than the USA. People are totally up in arms about this. I just can't relate at all, but they had 12 years of pro - gay  media while I've been out of the country, so I am out of touch. They now genuinely believe this is super important. Maybe I'm getting old or something, but I honestly think they have lost all sense of proportion. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fok...-prideparaden/

----------


## Deborski

> Sorry I hadn't read your blog entry I think!  Lately I have been a really slippery fish here - not actively studying Russian right now, but I still like this forum so I pop in and comment... But sometimes I make comments too fast without knowing the full details of why people say what they say! Thanks for explaining! 
> Your story makes perfect sense though. How surprising that Soviet TV wanted a dating show! They must have really wanted to change. 
>  Maybe we should find a clip on Youtube and see if anyone remembers it!
> So they really weren't that high brow then... I mean, many of the state tv channels in Europe really looked down on "cheap" entertainment that was just intended to play to people's basic instincts. It was a kind of cultural elitism, really. I would have thought USSR TV was definitely onboard with that kind of outlook.  
> I guess the reaction of your friends in the USA shows that they were so indoctrinated about "evil Russians" that they couldn't really see beyond that. Sad!!! Particularly since the Russians didn't have that outlook on the USA and probably would have been intrigued in a reversed situation. It's also the general expat experience.... Once you return, people don't really understand how you have changed or what your life was life. 
> I remember having my fist serious anti-Soviet reaction as a kid when we learnt that USSR media essentially didn't cover Chernobyl initially, even though it was MASSIVE news in the rest of Europe and local people's lives were actually at risk. It really upset me because I was so into environmentalism and I thought the USSR was better than killing a major story just because it was embarrassing. Of course, later it emerged that some horrendous stories had been covered up. But then, nobody knew. Then suddenly, they changed their minds about Chernobyl  I think, and invited foreign media -- maybe it ended up being a bit of an eye-opener to the bosses of the TV in the USSR, as they realised their politics had denied people knowledge and proper coverage of such a monumental event.

 It's fine - my blog is long!  Nearly 40 chapters so far, so if you ever are bored on a cold winter's night maybe it can entertain you  ::  
The dating game show, Найди Меня, was actually in production long before I arrived in the USSR.  However, it was really nothing like American dating game shows at all.  It was more of a serious sort of matchmaking service to help young Soviet citizens find the loves of their lives.  I describe it in a lot more detail in my blog. 
I was very disappointed with the reaction of my fellow Americans.  They just are not as open-minded as I am, and if anything they seem more closed minded today.  provincial, self-absorbed.  Few of them are interested in other countries.  I blame our media for that mindset, really.  And I agree, it is a common expat experience.  Russia changed me forever, in ways I am still ascertaining.  But I am grateful for that experience, even if some people "punished" me psychologically for it. 
By the way, I have posted a few clips from Найди Меня on youtube.  This is just one of them:

----------


## Deborski

As regards gay rights, I am not going to be drawn into a debate on the subject in this forum.  I see no point in discussing it.  I will only say that I have very close friends who are gay, and that they are not evil, or sick, or brainwashed, or whatever else people say about them.  When my husband was dying in the hospital, the friend who helped me, who held me as I cried through the night, was a lesbian.  She never tried to come onto me, or "turn me gay" or any of that rubbish.  She was kind, compassionate and caring and she was THERE for me, which is a lot more than I can say for my own family, or for the so-called Christians, who like to sit in judgement of others but don't seem to understand that concept about "love your neighbor" as well as my gay friends do.  Frankly, I do not care what other people do in their bedrooms, whether they are gay or straight, it makes no difference to me.  As long as everyone is consensual and an adult, it should not be the business of the church, or the state, to intrude on their personal lives. 
My primary concern about Russia's new laws, is the ambiguity of them.  Simply stating that "gay propaganda" is illegal leaves things very wide open.  Does it mean I can be arrested for saying something like I just said above?  If so, I will not travel to Russia until things change.  There are also laws now against "offending the sensibilities of religious people."  I find that extremely disturbing.  Sure, it's Russia's business what it does and I will not travel there to try to change things, that would never have been my purpose.  But to be worried about being arrested or fined just for speaking my mind, is not a way I want to live.   
And that's all I wish to say on the subject in this forum.

----------


## maxmixiv

> @ Maxmixiv: I was looking at pictures of your city, Omsk, yesterday. It looks really cool and it's not that far north of Baikonur. Do you ever watch the Soyuz launches? Just curious. I've been checking out lots of cities all over Russia.

 Omsk looks cool  ::  Проблема последней мили - Омск - МаксМикс - Участники - Фотогалерея iXBT DSC_2328_redu.jpg - Омск - МаксМикс - Участники - Фотогалерея iXBT 
Sorry, I never visited Baikonur, never heard of anyone being there, and last time I watched Soyuz starting was on TV (First channel!), about 1978-1979 I think.

----------


## 14Russian

> Dating shows had appeared suddenly.

 How 'suddenly?'    Russia has tons of 'Western style' TV shows that are state-sponsored.   MTV-type, reality shows and other 'popular' syndicated sitcoms.   So much for the hyped 'oppression' with the law.   Like I said before, it's two different messages expressed.   Where's that one Russian who didn't like me saying 'Putin regime?'   LOL 
Wake up, guys.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> It's unbelievable how ignorant, arrogant and prejudiced some of the commentators on US TV sometimes are, and particularly when it comes to Russia. 
> It's THEIR loss, though. Who cares? 
> If they want to sit on the other side of the Atlantic and hate a country they never visited and don't have the true facts about.... then let them! It's particularly sad though since Russians absolutely seem prepared to give the USA and Americans a chance and some are really positive. Meanwhile Americans with very few exceptions are literally swimming in prejudice.

 I care because it makes it uber study to learn anything about Russia. And it's a huge chunk of the planet that I want to know about. But the Russian newspapers and this site are helping tons.    

> The recent drama about gay rights in Russia is a worry though: Fingers crossed there will be no big gay pride manifestation during the Olympics and Russia overreacting. I think it would be much more dignified if Russia responded to a gay manifestation with a shake of the head and just let them do their thing. I think a lot of people just think it looks stupid and tasteless anyway, but it would be tons worse if the demonstrators were dragged off in handcuffs, and JUST the footage to fit with the prejudice.

 No worries because it's the Obama administration that's doing all the over-reacting. President Putin has been really cool about stuff. We need a new President because President Obama is epic embarrassing.  ::    

> Isn't that magazine the the mouthpiece of the elites in the USA,  essentially? Not popular on this side of the pond at all, but I've come  across it. 
> I mean, what they are writing isn't even objectively true! 
> And Obama isn't quite aggressive enough in his foreign policy for the journalists at Forbes clearly! 
> If  they want to boycott the Olympic games they'll just look like a kid who  has a trauma in the supermarket when he doesn't get the sweets he  wants!

 Dunno. It's just a financial magazine that dad reads. I only read it because I saw that article.    

> Didn't they actually boycott the games in Moscow too? I was too young wouldn't have known. Or did they just say they would..? 
> What  if every country that had a complaint against the USA had boycotted the  games there? Hardly anyone apart from the UK and a few arab emirates  would have turned up....

 Dunno. That was before I was even born. But I googled it and yeah, the US boycotted it. They really need to keep politics out of the olympics.   

> *Since they can't find anything  seriously wrong that Russia does, they are blowing this gay thing out of  ALL PROPORTIONS. Don't fall for it, Deborski and others! * I mean, anyone  who wants to worry about gay rights should start in the US allied Saudi  Arabia, just about any gulf state or any country in Africa. All that  Russia does is prevents a parade. Meanwhile in the USA plenty of people  are prevented from demonstrating about other things. 
> And in this, I have to say that Sweden is worse than the USA. People are totally up in arms about this. I just can't relate at all, but they had 12 years of pro - gay  media while I've been out of the country, so I am out of touch. They now genuinely believe this is super important. Maybe I'm getting old or something, but I honestly think they have lost all sense of proportion. Fokus på Ryssland i Prideparaden - DN.SE

 Tbh, I don't see anything happening in Russia that isn't happening in the US or other countries. The only differences are that Russians are easier to talk to, the culture is different, and the food is probably different too. 
There's tons of human rights violations in the US so I don't get how we can make drama about other countries. It just makes us look stupid.
Anyway, I just want to see the Sochi Olympics WITHOUT political drama.    

> Omsk looks cool  Проблема последней мили - Омск - МаксМикс - Участники - Фотогалерея iXBT DSC_2328_redu.jpg - Омск - МаксМикс - Участники - Фотогалерея iXBT 
> Sorry, I never visited Baikonur, never heard of anyone being there, and last time I watched Soyuz starting was on TV (First channel!), about 1978-1979 I think.

 zOOmg!  ::  Those look way different than the pictures I saw! Thanks for posting them.
I've never seen a launch in real life but I always find something on youtube (NASA never has any ISS launch videos). This was the launch for Expedition Crew 36 on the Soyuz TMA-08M in March. It's kinda dark but it was 2:43 am in Baikonur. It would be so cool to see that in real life!  ::

----------


## Hanna

Debs, if you want to see something really radical, in English, try PressTV. It's not necessary to be a moslem or a fan of Iran to appreciate this channel. I'm neither. They cover European news with a socialist / moslem angle, but they are not blinded by ideology. What they are reporting is definitely true -- anyone who lives in the UK can confirm that their stories from here are true. From the USA they do some really interesting investigating journalism. 
But these stories are not give a second in mainstream news. I don't support their views on Israel but they've got real kickass independent documentaries about the USA and Europe. The fact that they've been banned off all the European and American satellites speaks highly of them, I think!  
On RT, I really enjoy the show run by a woman called Oksana Boyko. She is 100% up to speed on whatever topic she is covering and all the male guests totally underestimate her _(she's good looking and has a rather strong accent that would probably pass for sexy)_. She almost always come out on top on any debate,  and her Conservative/Republican interviewees are totally taken to the cleaner. Definitely worth a watch as you do a bit of housework or something.  
I think Max Keiser from RT is a lunatic, (or possibly an alcoholic/pothead)  but his predictions about the economic future of the dollar are probably right. Apparently he's been bang on the money for the last decade.

----------


## it-ogo

Башорг is relevant as usual:  

> xxx: Знакомый загадал загадку: "Со мной учится мальчик, у которого нет мамы, зато два папы, причем один платит алименты другому. И нет, они не геи."  xxx: Оказалось, его мать развелась с его отцом и вышла за другого, а потом вообще свинтила в неизвестном направлении. Сын, воспитанный отчимом, с ним и остался. А родной отец поддерживает.

----------


## Hanna

I notice in the coverage of this in the international press that people and even media seems to think that this is an oppressive rule that Putin is forcing on the poor Russian people... and that regular people would love to see gay parades.  
Kind of silly. If they care so much about this question, they should go to Russia, stop ten regular citizens on the street and ask people whether they want gay parades! 
They'd get nine no's as far as I can tell.... and even some of the gay people themselves might not see the need and value of parades.  
This story is a perfect example of media in certain countries WANTING to find be able to find a story that confirms with their agenda of portraying Russia as an oppressive dictatorship.  (when in reality, this particular issue probably doesn't interest people like Putin much either way).  
It's also ridiculous that they complain about this in Russia, while running a story about shopping holidays to* Dubai and Abu Dhabi* on the next spread. Guess what would happen if you were found out to be gay there? Prison, whipping, stoning.... How come this is not interesting, while the Russian people's desire to not have gay manifestations on their streets is such a big deal...?  
Swedish press is making a big issue about the "risks" of going to the Olympic in Sochi. Meanwhile they are building a weapons factory using 3000 Swedish staff in Saudi Arabia. They'd better not be gay and found out, or they'd be stoned to death. How come Russia's harmless law is worse than this...? 
In many parts of Africa, they simply kill homosexual people on the spot if they are discovered. And it's not conisdered a crime. That's another thing to write about, but since it's "just" Africa, nobody cares.  
I hope everyone sees the propaganda angle, and the illogical approach to this issue. 
Having a gay pride parade and propagating homosexuality to underage people is NOT a human right in any sense of the world. You can live completely fulfilling life, including as a gay person without doing these things. I just don't see the problem.

----------


## Basil77

I agree that the law is very badly written, but I support at least the point there it's aimed, the law is called "Ban of gay propaganda among children". Among children! There is no sanctions in it for beeing gay or discussing gay issues among adults. But please, keep children out of this. Being the father of two, I totally support the idea at least.

----------


## Deborski

> I notice in the coverage of this in the international press that people and even media seems to think that this is an oppressive rule that Putin is forcing on the poor Russian people... and that regular people would love to see gay parades.  
> Kind of silly. If they care so much about this question, they should go to Russia, stop ten regular citizens on the street and ask people whether they want gay parades! 
> They'd get nine no's as far as I can tell.... and even some of the gay people themselves might not see the need and value of parades.  
> This story is a perfect example of media in certain countries WANTING to find be able to find a story that confirms with their agenda of portraying Russia as an oppressive dictatorship.  (when in reality, this particular issue probably doesn't interest people like Putin much either way).  
> It's also ridiculous that they complain about this in Russia, while running a story about shopping holidays to* Dubai and Abu Dhabi* on the next spread. Guess what would happen if you were found out to be gay there? Prison, whipping, stoning.... How come this is not interesting, while the Russian people's desire to not have gay manifestations on their streets is such a big deal...?  
> Swedish press is making a big issue about the "risks" of going to the Olympic in Sochi. Meanwhile they are building a weapons factory using 3000 Swedish staff in Saudi Arabia. They'd better not be gay and found out, or they'd be stoned to death. How come Russia's harmless law is worse than this...? 
> In many parts of Africa, they simply kill homosexual people on the spot if they are discovered. And it's not conisdered a crime. That's another thing to write about, but since it's "just" Africa, nobody cares.  
> I hope everyone sees the propaganda angle, and the illogical approach to this issue. 
> Having a gay pride parade and propagating homosexuality to underage people is NOT a human right in any sense of the world. You can live completely fulfilling life, including as a gay person without doing these things. I just don't see the problem.

 As I said, I am not going to be pulled into an argument about gay rights in Russia. 
However, I need to say that I do not personally know anyone who can afford to travel to Dubai, much less go shopping there!  Dubai is only for the uber-wealthy, and America's uber-wealthy tend to be right wing conservatives who are opposed to gay rights as well as women's rights. 
Russia is in the news now, because Russia recently enacted new laws, the timing of which is very unfortunate with the Olympic Games in Sochi just around the corner.  A lot of people in the US are pushing for a boycott of the games specifically because of these new laws, and out of fear that gay athletes, tourists, or journalists might be arrested. 
I myself am against a boycott.  I think the Games are a perfect time for our gay athletes to perform with their heads held high, break stereotypes, and compete on equal ground for the gold.  A boycott will only cause further deterioration of foreign relations, as well as destroy the dreams of US athletes who have trained all their lives and dream of going there.  Gay or not, I think they should have the opportunity to compete! 
But I should add that there is a LOT of animosity in the US towards Russia right now because of those new laws.  In America, they are perceived as hateful and cruel, and Americans do not have a good opinion of Russia to begin with, so this has only intensified everyone's anger, and the media hyping it up doesn't help.   
I myself am caught in the middle, because I frequently stand up for Russia when people call Russians "evil" or "cruel" or "hateful" etc, etc.  But at the same time, I support gay rights, and some Russians hate me for that.   
I can't win, but despite that I keep speaking my mind where I can.   ::

----------


## Lampada

> ...And in this, I have to say that Sweden is worse than the USA. People are totally up in arms about this. I just can't relate at all, but they had 12 years of pro - gay media while I've been out of the country, so I am out of touch. They now genuinely believe this is super important. Maybe I'm getting old or something, but I honestly think they have lost all sense of proportion. Fokus på Ryssland i Prideparaden - DN.SE

 
И Нидерланды! ::

----------


## Боб Уайтман

Deb, I'll try to be constructive. Not meaning to confront with you, can I ask you to comment on some of my questions, please?   

> A lot of people in the US are pushing for a boycott of the games specifically because of these new laws, and out of fear that gay athletes, tourists, or journalists might be arrested.

 What makes them think they might be arrested? I hope you have heard about the law statement (that was mentioned many times here), I mean what this law prohibits and what it does not. 
You are saying "A lot of people in the US ... fear that gay athletes, tourists, or journalists might be arrested" - are those people in the US deliberately misinformed? What do you think of it? How do the local mass media interprete what is the Russian law about? 
And, do you, yourself, believe the gay guests might be arrested? If yes, then why?   

> I myself am against a boycott. I think the Games are a perfect time for our gay athletes to perform with their heads held high, break stereotypes, and compete on equal ground for the gold. A boycott will only cause further deterioration of foreign relations, as well as destroy the dreams of US athletes who have trained all their lives and dream of going there. Gay or not, I think they should have the opportunity to compete!

 Here I fully agree with you. 
But there is another question to you:
How, do you think, we are supposed to know "that athlete is a gay"? Do you think a sports TV commentator would announce: "and now runs Mr N. from the United States, *a gay athlete*"? Is it what you mean? 
This would seem as silly to me as, e.g., classifying male guests into two groups (sorry, this is a rude example, but not meaning to insult anyone - just for the sake of analogy): men who prefer urinating sitting and men who prefer urinating standing. Just imagine a commentator saying:
"Number 11 is Mr K. He is 22 years old. And yes, he likes urinating sitting".
"And number 15 is Mr. L. A famous athlete from X-land. Yes, forgot to mention it, that guy likes urinating standing!" 
Can you see the analogy in my example? Do you understand why I provided it?   

> But at the same time, I support gay rights, and some Russians hate me for that.

  I do not  ::  But here's my last question to you: What do you think their rights should be? How do you understand it? And why do you think they are oppressed in modern Russia?

----------


## Deborski

Bob, I have stated before and I will state again, that I am not going to be drawn into an argument about gay rights.   
I have read your comments on other threads and you clearly oppose gay rights, and you obviously feel very strongly about it and want to argue about it, judging from all the underlining and emphasizing in your comments above as well as the pejorative manner in which you are supposedly "questioning" me.  Your crude "examples" do not impress me, nor shock me, nor make me in any way amiable to wanting to discuss this issue with you. 
And I clearly support gay rights, and human rights, and I feel just as strongly as you do, and there is nothing you or I can say which is going to change our minds.  I see no point in discussing it with you, because this will turn into a back and forth thing which will go on forever.  You will post a bunch of links to support your view, and I will post a bunch of links to support my view.  The anti-gay crowd will "like" your comments and the people who support gays will "like" my comments, but nothing will change, certainly not your opinion nor mine. 
I have stated my opinion and I have no interest in defending it for your entertainment.  You can easily google for the "answers" you seek.

----------


## Paul G.

These Netherlandish idiots act like kids. 
By the way, there is no such a thing like "gay rights" (don't mix up with "gay nights"). There are merely "human rights", that's all. From this point of view, there is no problem with human rights in Russia in the context of so-called "gay rights". I even can't comment what kind of bullshit Stephen Fry said and wrote. He's an excellent example of that a lot of gays have obvious mental problems (Stephen Fry tried to kill himself).

----------


## 14Russian

> Bob, I have stated before and I will state again, that I am not going to be drawn into an argument about gay rights.

 Yet, you've said so three times but keep replying.  ::  
One thing Hanna said which is accurate and that is the importance placed on this issue.   It's a hyped up public relations/political and propaganda-fuelled movement which accomplishes a couple of things.   One, a distraction away from other crucial issues and two, it allows this distraction at home (in Russia) to give something for Mr. Pootin to pretend he's strong about issues. 
Imho, the best response is to ignore the expression (if you don't like it) and not fund it whatsoever.  The mistakes made in the West was to involve the State/Government and promote and fund organizations.   For e.g., in schools and parades are paid for by the Government.   Once the Government is funding and promoting a 'side', that is where you get your propaganda.   Russia doesn't have to concern themselves with that.....  um, wait.... Russian State TV (Russia 1 etc.) is showing.... ?????!??    Oh yeah, no one here is commenting on that.    Instead, the same rhetoric is repeated (both sides) - so boring.  ::

----------


## Deborski

Replying is not the same thing as debating.  I did not answer any of Bob's "questions" because they are not really questions.  They are like digs made at me and if I reply or stand up for what I believe, then I will become a convenient target for everyone who hates gay people.  I don't like having conversations when they turn into shouting matches, when people start insulting each other and calling each other names.  I do not like getting into arguments where we try to make each other look like idiots, and Bob's comment was intended to trigger me.  I am not going to be triggered, or led into a trap where I can become convenient fodder for everyone's anti-gay rage.  I just don't have the time for it, and anyway, I am not "The Homophobe Whisperer."

----------


## 14Russian

> Replying is not the same thing as debating.  I did not answer any of Bob's "questions" because they are not really questions.  They are like digs made at me and if I reply or stand up for what I believe, then I will become a convenient target for everyone who hates gay people.  I don't like having conversations when they turn into shouting matches, when people start insulting each other and calling each other names.  I do not like getting into arguments where we try to make each other look like idiots, and Bob's comment was intended to trigger me.  I am not going to be triggered, or led into a trap where I can become convenient fodder for everyone's anti-gay rage.  I just don't have the time for it, and anyway, I am not "The Homophobe Whisperer."

 Okay, fair enough.   But, his last post, he seems to be just asking questions.   I am not sure where the 'dig at you' is. 
The way I perceive it, the 'Russian perspective' (I am just using this for simplicity - I don't mean to portray or imply everyone has this perspective) is that the expression should be kept to oneself or at least not directed at minors.   The Western approach is to support these special interest groups and promote 'rights' in some sort of categorization and compartmentalization so in a way, I am agreeing with one of Paul's comments.   The Government encourages this and funds this trend.   Of course, like all political issues, there are those within the Government that are against it or at least pretend that they are.    
However, I am not sure why no one responds to my point.   I am wondering why many Russians seem to accept the law regarding one type of propaganda and whether that is the best approach.   Why so eager to support 'laws' like this or any kind that is directed towards expression?   When will it stop or which one will be next?   I might agree with their sentiments even but I don't know if Government should be providing the solution.   And as I mentioned previously, the type of TV programming seems to contradict this so-called attempt at avoiding the 'spread of propaganda.'   That doesn't occur to anyone (in Russia)?   I guess if no one will respond to that, I'll exit the discussion, too.

----------


## Боб Уайтман

> Bob, I have stated before and I will state again, that I am not going to be drawn into an argument about gay rights.   
> I have read your comments on other threads and you clearly oppose gay rights, and you obviously feel very strongly about it and want to argue about it, judging from all the underlining and emphasizing in your comments above as well as the pejorative manner in which you are supposedly "questioning" me.

 I clearly stated I did not mean to insult you in any way. I tried to propose a constructive dialogue with clarifying very specific points. You expressed your opinion in the previous post which leaves many questions which are not clear to me. What I wanted here is to clarify them "step by step". I did not only ask about your own opinion, but I also asked about the way this information is interpreted in your country.
You think I am "supposedly questioning you in a pejorative manner". I am very sorry if you take it this way.
First, I was really interested in your answers. Second, I do not see what is pejorative in my questions to you. I am afraid you did not get my intentions right. 
For example, you wrote that many people in the U.S. are afraid the gay athletes can be arrested during the Olympics.
I wrote:
"What makes them think they might be arrested? I hope you have heard about the law statement (that was mentioned many times here), I mean what this law prohibits and what it does not" 
What is wrong in my question? I can assume they might be deliberately miss-informed about the meaning of that law. To clarify that, I asked for your opinion:
"You are saying "A lot of people in the US ... fear that gay athletes, tourists, or journalists might be arrested" - are those people in the US deliberately misinformed? What do you think of it? How do the local mass media interpret what is the Russian law about?" 
I do not see anything pejorative in these questions again. 
I know that you worked in the USSR, and you know about Russia better than most of people in your country. That is why I hoped you do understand that opinion is wrong (fear that someone might be arrested).   

> And I clearly support gay rights, and human rights, and I feel just as strongly as you do, and there is nothing you or I can say which is going to change our minds.

 I think so. You will hardly change my mind, and I will hardly change yours. But I tried at least to understand some logic in your statements. I mainly mean the situation around boycotting the games. Why they think so, and what the mass media are telling there.   

> I see no point in discussing it with you, because this will turn into a back and forth thing which will go on forever.

 That is your right, if you choose not to answer.   

> You can easily google for the "answers" you seek.

 I am not interested in the google opinion. What surprises me here is that the "pro-gay" crowd chose not to notice very obvious things that were mentioned a lot of times. Mainly: Why they think someone is in danger to be prosecuted in Sochi? That is taken for granted in the "pro-gay" posts, but it is as strange as assuming "2 x 2 = 5" without any explanation why. 
You wrote you saw my other comments. I would like to ask another question then, but I'm afraid you can take me wrong again... So, let it be a question with no answer. "Did you ever see a post where I wrote that gays are bad, they should not exist, they should not be treated as normal people in the society etc. If yes, then where did I write it exactly?" But OK, it's a rhetorical question then. All I did is relying on logic. It still cannot get why there is any issue with their rights in the sense of this law. 
I hope you understand it at least now.

----------


## Deborski

I think that the people are being distracted from something more important, just like we are being distracted all the time in the US.  The politicians and media know that gay rights is a controversial and hot-button topic in Russia right now, so they are just fanning the flames.  My question, is what is really going on?  Why are people being distracted?   
The same issue is being used to distract people in the US too.  People are so outraged at Russia right now, about gay rights, that they can not see anything good about Russia at all.  It is impossible to discuss any other issue because it is immediately conflated with this one.  For example, I said on Facebook recently that I support Putin's decision to grant asylum to Snowden.  But people got angry with me for saying that because they don't understand how I can "support" Putin after he passed the anti-gay laws. 
Unlike some people, I can separate the issues.  I can support Putin about Snowden, and disagree with the anti-gay laws at the same time.  Most people are unable to do that.  They conflate the issues because their thinking is all or nothing, black and white, either/or.  If Putin is against gays, then everything else he does must be wrong too.  Same kind of thinking goes for Obama.  Obama is either all good, or all bad.  People are unable to discuss each issue separately it seems.  As for me, I am very pleased with Obama for passing healthcare, but at the same time I think Obama acted like a spoiled child when he canceled the summit with Putin, and I think his pursuit of Snowden is obsessive and arrogant.  Different issues. 
I don't believe that all Russians support these new laws at all.  The majority of Russians probably do.  But some of my friends have privately told me that they are against these new laws, especially the law against "offending the sensibilities of religious people."  That one is very disturbing, considering that a large percentage of Russians are atheists.  So right now, gay people are the ones being persecuted and the majority supports that because the majority do not like gay people for various reasons, most of which are deeply rooted in Russian culture.  But my question is, after the gays are "dealt with" who will be next?  Jews?  Atheists?  Anyone who dares to disagree with the ROC?   
Well, I don't live in Russia and far be it for me to tell Russians how to run their country.  America has its own problems, and I spend the majority of my time focusing on that.

----------


## Deborski

Bob, what you call a "constructive discussion" - looks to me more like a "step by step" dismantling of everything I stated, ie, a debate where you pick apart every sentence, every word, every syllable and I am supposed to eagerly do the same in return.  But I don't want to.  I don't want to debate it.  I do not care what you believe.  If you don't understand my logic, then no amount of explaining is going to get through to you and frankly I do not have the energy to explain it further.

----------


## Paul G.

> and disagree with the anti-gay laws at the same time.

 You say about "anti-gay" laws so much, but you even don't provide the point why you think it's "anti". Have you read it? Do you know what it is really?
And, of course, I don't understand why we should bother about idiots who think they may be arrested in Russia just because they are gay. There are thousands gays in Russia. Can you call me at least one person who was arrested because he is gay?

----------


## Боб Уайтман

> You say about "anti-gay" laws so much, but you don't provide the point why you think it's "anti". Have you read it? Do you know what it is really?
> And, of course, I don't understand why we should bother about idiots who think they may be arrested in Russia just because they are gay. There are thousands gays in Russia. Can you call me at least one person who was arrested because he was gay?

 That is exactly what I tried to ask already...

----------


## Deborski

Paul, I reiterate, not gonna engage you in debate on this topic.  Especially considering your starting platform where you assume so many bad negative things about me as a person, as regards my level of knowledge, etc.  I see no point in trading insults.

----------


## Deborski

> That is exactly what I tried to ask already...

 Good!  Then Paul can answer your "questions" satisfactorily and I assure you, his answers will please you much more than mine would.

----------


## Paul G.

There is nothing insulting in my questions. I just want to know you are informed properly or maybe we are talking about concocted bullshit. According to your 'answers' I make up a conclusion that you are simply an uninformed coward.

----------


## Deborski

> There is nothing insulting in my questions. I just want to know you are informed properly or maybe we are talking about concocted bullshit. According to your 'answers' I make up a conclusion that you are simply an uninformed coward.

 Nope, Paul.  Nothing insulting about THAT, at all. 
And no, you are not going to get an answer from me.  Спокойной ночи, Паша!

----------


## Lampada

> ...According to your 'answers' I make up a conclusion that you are simply an uninformed coward.

 According to some of your posts and language it's obvious that you are a longtime hardcore bully.

----------


## Deborski

And this is precisely why I don't see any point in answering Paul's or Bob's questions, although Bob was a tad more polite than Paul.   
I've discussed this and other subjects enough times to have developed an almost sixth sense when it comes to knowing how a particular discussion will unfold.  When there are thinly veiled insults, or not-so-thinly veiled insults, in a person's comments to begin with, it seems logical to deduce that any further discussion will degrade to less subtle insults, and then open insults, flaming and general douchebaggery.   
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is simply not my cup of tea.   
I most definitely do have strong opinions on this subject, as well as sound logic for having reached the conclusions I have.  I was raised in a very strict fundamental religious sect where homosexuality was considered a sin along with just about everything else.  Eating bacon, wearing cosmetics, swearing, working on the Sabbath Day, and dating outside of my church were also considered "sins."  We even avoided certain kinds of crackers and marshmallows because they contained LARD!  _Oh the humanity!_ 
It has taken me many, many years of hard introspection and deep meditation to work through the layers upon layers of lies I was raised with, and I credit my dear friends in the former Soviet Union (one of whom is gay) for having helped to set me on that path of self-exploration, the path of truth.   
There is no way I can sum up in a short argument, among people who are less than likely to respect or understand my journey, things which it took me years to understand.  You will simply come to it on your own, or not come to it.  I have absolutely no interest in changing anyone else's opinion, and I have even less interest in allowing anyone to bully or intimidate me.

----------


## Paul G.

What a big text about nothing! Do you want to start another book with concocted facts in it? So, you admitted that you know nothing about the topic. Congratulations.

----------


## Боб Уайтман

Well. I wanted to be constructive. And I wanted to clarify open questions without insulting anyone. So I suggested the form of specific questions and answers (my post RT coverage on gay rights in Russia). I clearly formulated the questions, some of them are very simple, just "yes-no" questions. None of my questions contained any personal accusation. 
Some people may not like my analogies I provided to make my point clearer. I explicitely apologized for some crudity they contain. Although they did not contain any personal insult directed to any specific participant. I just HAD to provide them to show the whole topic is as obscene as my examples are. 
However, some persons accused me in being "pejorative", in "attacking" them, instead of clarifying their position in a constructive manner. That's all what I got in exchange. It is like "everything you do is BAD just because it is BAD, no logic accepted". 
What should I do now? I have to sum up the idea I tried to convey. And leave the discussion forever. 
Summary:
1. There is no law which prosecutes gays for being a gay. It does not exist.
2. There is a law which prevents minors from being inveigled into any non-traditional sexual behavior. So, the law prohibits promotion of the non-traditional relationships to minors. That's how it is written there. It does not explicitly specify gays, lesbians and other sorts of that behavior.
3. There is absolutely no reason for any gay guest of the Olympics to be arrested or punished, if they are not involved into the activity of Item 2. Please read item 2 carefully prior to judging.
4. If there are many people in the U.S. who are seriously concerned by the possibility that some athletes, journalists etc. can be punished at the Olympics, it only means one thing: the U.S. mass media are deliberately lying to them. So, they do not explain what this law is about. Instead of telling the truth, they feed up the hysteria by calling it "anti-gay law".
5. In addition to what is stated above, there is no reasonable way how we can even know about someone's orientation. No one is going to ask anyone "Are you a gay?" That is not even supposed to happen. It is a private thing, and the majority of people here do respect private life, they are not interested in intervening it.
It is the U.S. where a public discussion of someone's pregnancy (as I heard of it) can be a norm. But here even pregnancy is not an appropriate thing to be discussed publically, not to mention someone's orientation. 
No issue exists. 
That's all I wanted to say. I have nothing to add more. And I am quitting this discussion now. Who wants to accept the logic, they will. Otherwise it is absolutely useless to keep arguing. No more posts will be made here ever.

----------


## maxmixiv

> But my question is, after the gays are "dealt with" who will be next? Jews? Atheists?

 I bet on atheists, but being atheist I'd say, it is not the end of the world. Just sad. No one persecutes nobody (until that nobody want to take a bit money or influence)

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Yet, you've said so three times but keep replying.  
> One thing Hanna said which is accurate and that is the importance placed on this issue.   It's a hyped up public relations/political and propaganda-fuelled movement which accomplishes a couple of things.   One, a distraction away from other crucial issues and two, it allows this distraction at home (in Russia) to give something for Mr. Pootin to pretend he's strong about issues. 
> Imho, the best response is to ignore the expression (if you don't like it) and not fund it whatsoever.  *The mistakes made in the West was to involve the State/Government and promote and fund organizations.   For e.g., in schools and parades are paid for by the Government.*   Once the Government is funding and promoting a 'side', that is where you get your propaganda.   Russia doesn't have to concern themselves with that.....  um, wait.... Russian State TV (Russia 1 etc.) is showing.... ?????!??    Oh yeah, no one here is commenting on that.    Instead, the same rhetoric is repeated (both sides) - so boring.

 I agree. But they can only push that agenda at public schools. A lot of private schools (and even some public schools) ignore the gay agenda. My school doesn't even discuss the gay lifestyle.  *@ ANYONE THAT WANTS TO UNDERSTAND RUSSIAN LAWS:* 
What most Americans understand about the new law in Russia:
It's an anti-gay law that Putin imposes on the people and he hopes he can eliminate all the gays in Russia.
That's NOT THE TRUTH but it's what a lot of Americans are saying. 
The Truth about the new law in Russia:
The law makes it illegal to promote non-traditional relations for minors. Also, it is a law that agrees with Russian culture and 74% of Russians agree with the law.
Since I plan to go to Russia someday, it's important to understand the language, the culture, and the laws. 
This is a collection of information I found online about sex laws in Russia. I removed all positive/negative comments.
If there are any mistakes in the data, please let me know.  *A BRIEF LOOK AT THE CURRENT RUSSIAN SEX LAWS:*
The age of consent currently stands at 16 since 2003, regardless of sexual orientation.
Male homosexual acts were decriminalized in 1993, -- Female homosexual acts were never considered an issue and "Tomboy" behavior was condoned even in Tsarist Russia.
Transsexual and transgender people can change their legal gender after corresponding medical procedures since 15 November 1997.
Homosexuality was officially removed from the Russian list of mental illnesses in 1999.
Active gay males are allowed to donate blood to blood banks since 16 April 2008.
There is currently no legal recognition of same-sex couples in Russia, and same-sex marriages are not allowed. Public support for gay marriages is 16% in 2013.
Only married heterosexual couples can adopt children together, as a couple. -- Single parent homosexual adoptions were banned 3 July 2013.
Gay people can serve in the military on a par with heterosexual people since 2003. -- They can serve openly but discretion is advised for safety.
There are no laws protecting against discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  *A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NEW LAW:*
Since 2006, ten regions have enacted a ban on "propaganda of non-traditional relations among minors". As of May 2013: 
Ryazan Oblast - since 22 April 2006
Arkhangelsk Oblast - since 22 October 2011
Kostroma Oblast - since 28 February 2012
Saint Petersburg - since 30 March 2012
Magadan Oblast - since 30 June 2012
Novosibirsk Oblast - since 3 July 2012
Krasnodar Krai - since 19 July 2012
Samara Oblast - since 22 July 2012
Bashkortostan - since 5 August 2012 ---- The only region where the law does not include any kind of administrative sanctions or fines.
Kaliningrad Oblast - since 19 February 2013. ---- The bill bans propaganda of non-traditional relations among the entire population, regardless of age. 
In June 2012, Moscow courts enacted a hundred-year ban on gay pride parades.
On 11 June 2013 the State Duma (lower legislative house) adopted a federal law banning propaganda of non-traditional relations.
On 26 June 2013 the Federation Council of Russia (upper legislative house) voted in the new anti-propaganda law.
On 30 June 2013 President Vladimir Putin signed the bill into law. -- A bill passed by both houses of the Russian Parliament (see above).  *THE INTENT OF THE LAW:*  

> Russia’s Supreme Court upheld a controversial regional ban on “gay propaganda,” (in St. Petersburg) but said it only covers the direct promotion of homosexual relations among minors, LGBT activists said on Thursday.
> Informing minors about homosexual relations is also allowed as long as the information remains neutral in tone, the court said in a ruling passed in mid-August but not publicized until this week.

 Russian Supreme Court Defines ‘Gay Propaganda’ | Russia | RIA Novosti 
^ The problem with this article is that the law says "non-traditional relations" NOT "homosexual relations.". But it should be easy to see that the intent of the new law is only to prevent people from PROMOTING non-traditional relations to minors. That is all.  *VIOLATIONS:*
On 22 July 2013 it was reported that four Dutch tourists were arrested for discussing gay rights with Russian youths. The four were arrested for spreading propaganda of nontraditional relationships among the under-aged after talking to teens at a camp in the northern city of Murmansk.  *INCIDENTS:*
Anti-gay violence at the gay pride parades in Russia.
Increased homophobia in Russia has led to several incidences where gay minors have been attacked by Neo-Nazi groups. -- Neo-Nazi groups are illegal under Russian law.
It should be understood that Anti-gay people and Neo-Nazis exist in almost every country. Violence against gay people is world-wide, not just in Russia. It has even been "swept under the rug" by authorities in America - even recently. I can provide news links for those incidents too.  *MY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SOCHI OLYMPICS:*
Unless somebody goes to the Olympics to promote non-traditional relations to underage kids then nobody will be arrested. My advice is to go to the Olympics to watch the Olympics and have fun - not push agendas. Oh, and try to show some gratitude and respect to the country that is hosting the games - Russia.
And let the kids have fun at the games too - without adults pushing sex agendas at them.
Also, those Dutch adults had no right to talk to underage kids about sex. That right belongs to the parents and the schools.

----------


## Deborski

> What a big text about nothing! Do you want to start another book with concocted facts in it? So, you admitted that you know nothing about the topic. Congratulations.

 Again, I reiterate, what point is there in me talking about anything with any of you?  Paul's last comment sums up the kind of hostility I am facing here.  He attacks me, insults me, claims my story is "made up."  Feel free to read my story if you want to know more about me.  It's posted in the blog section.  It isn't "made up" - why would I go to the trouble of writing 40 chapters of "made up" stuff?  But if people are already hostile and attacking me, then of course it follows suit that they are going to disparage anything and everything I say, attack my character and my person, and then call me the "liar."  None of this surprises me in the least.  It's just all the more reason that I have no desire whatsoever to share my opinions with you. 
I get that all of you posting here hate gay people.  But why focus that hostility on me?  Why bully and push and press me when I have stated multiple times now, that I have no wish to discuss it with you?  I am not interested in trading insults with people who hate gays, and hate me simply because I support gay rights. 
I am bowing out of this thread.  And I have no doubt that Paul and others will make a few nasty, snarky comments about me after I go.  Have at it, if that makes you feel better about yourselves.  But in reality, it says more about you than it says about me. 
Now, be sure to like each others' comments, pat each other on the back, and feel like you are such great guys because you put me "in my place."  Just as effectively as the pigeon in the example above.

----------


## 14Russian

> I agree. But they can only push that agenda at public schools. A lot of private schools (and even some public schools) ignore the gay agenda. My school doesn't even discuss the gay lifestyle.

 Good post.   It seems that the violence and expressed hostility is only a fraction of the population but the mainstream media makes it sound like there's a hostile agenda against that part of the population.   Like I said, it is political spin and there's two points here:  1) exaggerated and manipulated political spin and 2) the contradictory position from the Russian government. 
Btw, I think those two pictures were beauties to sum up this political forum.   The left-wingers always look for strawmen and really can't discuss political issues rationally.  
I don't think having 'propaganda' laws are the right approach but it's up to Russians to decide.  I just hope Russians don't blame the citizens of other countries when the Governments of those countries speak out against Russia.   For instance, Canada's politicians are doing a lot of lecturing right now so I can assure Russians that these clowns are a problem there.

----------


## Lampada

> Again, I reiterate, what point is there in me talking about anything with any of you? Paul's last comment sums up the kind of hostility I am facing here. He attacks me, insults me, claims my story is "made up." Feel free to read my story if you want to know more about me. It's posted in the blog section. It isn't "made up" - why would I go to the trouble of writing 40 chapters of "made up" stuff? But if people are already hostile and attacking me, then of course it follows suit that they are going to disparage anything and everything I say, attack my character and my person, and then call me the "liar." None of this surprises me in the least. It's just all the more reason that I have no desire whatsoever to share my opinions with you. 
> I get that all of you posting here hate gay people. But why focus that hostility on me? Why bully and push and press me when I have stated multiple times now, that I have no wish to discuss it with you? I am not interested in trading insults with people who hate gays, and hate me simply because I support gay rights. 
> I am bowing out of this thread. And I have no doubt that Paul and others will make a few nasty, snarky comments about me after I go. Have at it, if that makes you feel better about yourselves. But in reality, it says more about you than it says about me. 
> Now, be sure to like each others' comments, pat each other on the back, and feel like you are such great guys because you put me "in my place." Just as effectively as the pigeon in the example above.

 Закроем эту грустную тему на время.   Деббочка, спасибо тебе за твою доброту и нескончаемое терпение.

----------

