Thumbnail
Thumbnail is from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie where multiple scenes depicting same sex relations were removed by the Chinese government
Their historic figures and modern anti-Western states they so vehemently defend all have abysmal, actively hostile records and attitudes regarding LGBTQ+ rights and representation, with prosecution and state-sanctioned execution.
Their modern "anti-imperialist" states, which they frequently defend and look up to as bastions of their takes, are all steeped in state-sanctioned homophobia and illegality of queer identities.
-
China: The government systematically censors LGBTQ+ representation in media (check the thumbnail spoiler above) and shuts down queer NGOs, framing them as "foreign influences." Same-sex couples are denied legal recognition, marriage, and adoption rights. The government actively censors people who openly discuss and advocate for the lack of rights and recognition for LGBTQ+ communities, not even allowing depictions of gay relationships in their media.
-
Russia: The State has explicitly outlawed the "international LGBT movement" by classifying it as an extremist organisation. Expressing queer identity publicly or portraying it positively in media is illegal and heavily penalised. There are gay people who are beaten in the street who dare hold hands with each other, afforded no protection or rights. They don't allow marriage or gender identity.
-
Iran and Hamas: Here the situation is lethal, where under these regimes, homosexuality is criminalised and punishable by imprisonment, torture and even state-sanctioned executions.
Then you have Marxist-Leninist figures, the architects and leaders, who were just as hostile to queer identity and LGBTQ people, calling being gay a Western deviancy and sending them to camps or killing them.
-
You have Stalin, who reversed the decriminalisation of homosexuality after the revolution, recriminalising it and calling it a symptom of bourgeois decadence and fascist depravity, where if you were openly gay, you were at risk of being sent to gulags or killed.
-
Mao Zedong heavily persecuted homosexuality during the Cultural Revolution, wherein later the State punished gay individuals under vague criminal charges of hooliganism and treating homosexuality as a mental illness by Western Capitalism.
-
Fidel Castro, of course, said that "a homosexual cannot be a revolutionary." And his government subsequently rounded up gay men to send them to labour camps, and otherwise viewed queer identities as unfit for socialist society.
-
Friedrich Engels mocked homosexual rights, calling its subjects "extremely against nature" and dismissing gay rights as "turning smut into theory." Marx received and circulated the letter without objection.
And then you have something much more local: Lemmy Developer, Nutomic, with their own moment: "The transgender topic is clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie, going as far as putting lgbt flags on government buildings, or allowing biological men to compete in women's sports at the Olympics."
Given all this, why would any queer person align themselves with an ideology whose foundational leaders persecuted them, and whose modern bastions or allies actively seek to erase them?
Note: This post is not defending Capitalism, or attacking Communism.
This is, and I mean this respectfully, a tall order.
This sentiment has been expressed about MAGA as well, that it takes a collective effort to engage with them and deprogram them. Furthermore, so it goes, this is a worthy goal because it turns one more soul against a life of hatred and loathing, it gives us back one more person. An evangelism of empathy and reason, so to speak.
But in my experience, and as anyone who has tried to argue with MAGA family members can tell you, this is an exhausting effort, bordering on futile. I do not want my lot in life to be the Sisyphean task of reminding people of the golden rule. Why is it my responsibility, be it collective or personal, to beg (Tankies/MAGA) to reconsider their philosophy? Because reason and logic, as you said, they shut down instantly. Empathy or compassion, or even "live and let live," they view as weakness.
I'm tired boss. I have my own life to live and my own people to look after. I don't need to deal with a Two Boats and a Helicopter buffoon.
it's not only exhausting, it's counter-productive. arguing with someone only makes them more entrenched in their position.
if you're only role in this person's life is to argue politics with them, you can only have a negative impact.
if you can befriend and support them and more subtly challenge their underlying assumptions, you have a slim chance at changing their minds.
Well, arguing when they show no interest or aptitude to think about what's being said. When they think it's a game, and that everyone else thinks so just like them. That's absolutely a lost cause. Even when they are perceptive and genuine, it's absolutely exhausting still. Ultimately you can't generally just lay out the facts and be done for the most part. You have to ask questions to lead them to find the understanding for themselves. They might not trust you. But if they come across it themselves its much harder to dismiss. Its a lot of hard work.
I largely agree, yeah, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. But when you see them spouting nonsense in public spaces, you can challenge them and have them immediately crumple.
Extremist positions are fuelled entirely by fear. One of the few successful methods is the Daryl Davis approach, where you simply communicate, act courteously, listen to their fears, and reassure them. Daryl David asked, 'How can you hate me when you don't even know me?' -- And so he treated extremists with genuine warmth and humility. You recognise their fear and treat them gently.
Other approaches are that you just question why over and over again, since extremist views are packed full of reality-denial, and having them confront that themselves gives a brief respite of self-awareness. You can ask them clarifying questions when there's a contradiction, having them spin themselves and confuse themselves about where you just repeat every new spin until they trip themselves up.
The fact of the matter is that extremists are genuinely unhappy; that's why they latch onto extremist views. Treating them with kindness and making them feel happy makes them leave the extremism. But it is exhausting, and a single mistake can undo everything. That's also why authorities of these extremists carefully remove anyone who isn't them, they can't risk that.
Yeah I also don't know that this even works to begin with.
Becoming besties with right-wing leaning individuals has not worked for me. Push came to shove during COVID and I lost a couple of friends to MAGA and antivaxx movements, who I'd known for over a decade.
The weirdest thing was that they knew I was trans, they were close friends of mine, and what pushed them out of our friend group had nothing to do with me. But you can bet that when they left, they also threw in a slew of transphobic comments before the door could hit them on the way out.
These people have a hatred that talk-no-jutsu just won't erase.
True, but the argument isn’t necessarily for them (although some have spoken of arguments starting cracks in their thinking that developed into them breaking out of the mindset years later). It’s for other people reading them.
There are, unfortunately, too many people who blindly believe what they see online, and tankies are masters at seeming reasonable. And so if they go unchallenged, people will think that means that their opinions are valid, and they are much more likely to drift towards the tankie mindset themselves. A challenge makes other people think.
So arguing for the sake of a third party reader, that I can get behind.
t-to who?
To people who don’t know, or who know just enough to be dangerous.
For instance, let’s say this person knows how the CIA admitted to messing with another country to put a puppet government in so that the US would have control. And that they biased the people of the US against the people trying to run the country that they didn’t like via lots of nasty propaganda.
Tankies will take that, and use it to claim that the US is trying to do that to China/Russia/North Korea/favorite-tankie-flavor-of-the-week, and therefore any bad thing you hear is nothing but lies and propaganda. Then they start listing good things about said country, making it actually sound amazing and wonderful and sparkly-perfect. In fact you’ll see them do this sequence quite a bit.
A person might be swayed to think that since they’d been lied to once, it was happening again. So they believe the tankie, because no-one comes along and says things like ‘that government actually admitted themselves that they did x bad thing’, or something.