You must log in or register to comment.
This mindset always frustrates me.
Of course it was performative, all public art is performative. This is no different than tv promoting the “traditional american family”, or statues “honoring the troops”, or memorials, or any other art promoting propagandized values.
But life imitates art. Even if the intent was insincere pandering, it still has an effect on how people perceive their society. We should want our propaganda to reflect our values. We should want statues of MLK and Harvey Milk instead of Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. We should want rainbow streets and pride flags in public spaces. We should want their agenda to match our values. We should want the next generation growing up in a society that shows its support for marginalized people, instead of nationalism.
I thought they were performative and unnecessary, their removal shows I was wrong.
These were the canary in the coal mine, as long as they stayed up it was safe for us.
They are just like rainbow capitalism. They don’t improve the rights of anyone but they are an indicator of the acceptance.
Exactly. People are all “TaRgEt jUsT waNtS yOuR mOnEy.”
Well, yeah, but also it just shows an overall acceptance. It makes people more at ease in general. It lets non queer people also feel more open to showing support. It’s about the overall mindset of society.
But target literally played both sides
Yeah, having it and taking it away is worse than never having it at all.
Right? Easy to overstate the value of it as we see now, but it sure was nice being a demographic worth pandering to, especially when that meant that the homophobes weren’t worth appeasing.
It was a good feeling but always had the aftertaste of instantly disappearing when the political wind changes. We will sadly never truly be free under capitalism
Historically speaking, under communism… Oh no. Oh no
Communism was never achieved by the two countries you’re thinking of. They only claim to have achieved socialism.
Communism was achieved in Australia, 60,000 years ago. It was enabled by advanced psychological and sociological technology.
Yes comrade, and I’m sure that once the tankies get rid of capitalism, it will cause an LGBT utopia the likes of which has never been seen.
The comment is meant to be food for thought : blaming capitalism on social ills is unwise and idealistic about what will happen after the current economic system.
Tankies? Those arseholes will never manage to get rid of capitalism. They couldn’t get rid of capitalism in Russia, and they still haven’t got rid of it in China. An elite class of billionaires still own the means of production, because tankies can’t do shit to improve the world.
Anarchists are one of the only groups with a track record of successfully implementing communism. We did it in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, and we’ll do it again. The other group is Indigenous people.
the last point still stands
Depends on what time you look at. In the starting years of the USSR and DDR gay, trans and womens rights were very good in comparison to western states at the time. It started getting worse when the economic problems accumulated due to war and outside pressure.
Sure. My point isn’t communism bad, it’s that the idea isn’t capitalism “causing” LGBT oppression and communism is sunshine and rainbow flags.
Like when atheists bitch about how “imagine no religion” would make everything great, and neglect to explain how they would get there. Like when the atheist Khamer rouge killed 50,000+ religious people in the name of atheism.
Folks, turns out it’s authoritarianism that causes oppression of civil liberties, not economic systems.
But capitalism does cause the oppression. It’s the us vs them mentality engrained deeply in society. People always have to be better and greater than others and everything is about competition. This makes people reject change because they fear that their status might be harmed by trying something new and the state spending money on other things.
It’s also not as direct of a solution as just killing all capitalists because the underlying system would remain the same and just produce more capitalists.
Capitalists do everything to distract from class-consciousness and creating outgroups helps a lot with this.
Free capitalism without “authoritarianism” also leads to oppression as one group would start hording wealth and indoctrinating the people to fight difference so they can keep the wealth they accumulated. This happens without forcing anything unto people by convincing them that they can also achieve wealth.
The people profiting from the status quo will always defend it
you can spin that about anything.
The khmer* rouge didn’t kill people “in the name of atheism”. They were largely copying the Chinese “great leap forward” pushing to cultural unification through genocide of minority groups. Yes, many of those groups were religious minorities, but to say they killed them in the name of atheism is like saying that the soviets killed people because they hate freedom. It’s obscenely disingenuous and clearly said to push an agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Relationship_to_religion
Nevertheless, it has been estimated that nearly 25,000 Buddhist monks were killed by the regime.[71]
They were largely copying the Chinese “great leap forward” pushing to cultural unification through genocide of minority groups.
And this is ok?
