Many gay activists in Nepal supported the Maoist guerrillas, but now :
on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, [the guerrillas] ]have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism" ... even though many gays were previously aligned with the Maoists....
Maoist cadres ... have warned home owners not to let out rooms to gays and lesbians.
In a way, the Maoists are right-only under market capitalism with its recognition of individual autonomy (rather than collectivism) and a civil/economic sphere not under the thumb of government bureaucrats/cadres/party hacks do gays have the freedom to socialize, organize and come out.
37 Comments for “When Will They Ever Learn?”
posted by Bobby on
Well, according to Progressive Principles 101, we all know that the following people are allowed to be homophobic:
1. Muslims/arabs.
2. African-Americans.
3. Hispanics.
4. Asians.
5. Foreigners.
6. Secularist/Atheists
And who isn’t allowed to be homophobic? Us white devils 🙂
That’s why the New York Times isn’t going to report on this story, it doesn’t have any whites, christians or jews in it.
posted by Carl on
Wasn’t the government in Nepal before this just as bad as the current government? You don’t go into much background about the history of Nepal. From what I’ve read, it’s not like they went from a recent paradise to this. They had few options.
posted by Carl on
BTW, Rich Tafel’s website is no longer around, or at least the site you link to no longer is.
posted by raj on
Carl | January 5, 2007, 4:47pm |
Wasn’t the government in Nepal before this just as bad as the current government?
According to the last paragraph of the linked-to article: Under King (of Nepal) Gyanendra’s rule, homosexuals were a pet target of his personal security apparatus. It doesn’t sound as if much has changed.
BTW, don’t mind Stevie. He’s admitted to being a recovering lefty. As such, he hates lefties–especially gay ones–and takes every opportunity that he has to try to paint lefties in a bad light. In many ways, he’s like a recovering smoker, who are oftentimes “holier than thou” when it comes to people who still smoke, or “ex-gays” who are oftentimes “holier than thou” when it comes to gay people. Recovering lefties, recovering smokers, and “ex-gays” go to the opposite extreme to atone for their previous perceived “transgressions.”
posted by Avee on
Silly rajey baby boobie thinks an autocratic king is just as bad as a totalitarian Maoist mass murder regime.
posted by Dilemma on
Well, Bobby. I’ll agree with you, except I’m in a dilemma here. I can’t stand how minorities tend to be hostile to gays. However, I’m a racial minority myself, and some gay racial minorities have issues that might not be issues for white gays, such as racial discrimination in the gay community, which, if you say isn’t a problem, means you’ve been living under a rock or are in denial. However, when we try to form coalitions with mainstream gay organizations, people like Steve accuse those gay organizations of forming “leftist” coalitions. I remember he had an issue with HRC or NGLTF (can’t remember which) having a survey about the particular issues that affect Asian gays. Why? Don’t know. We just want a voice. What are we to do?
Actually, I’m not addressing you personally. I’m trying to start a discussion with any reader, because this is a problem that gay racial minorities face. Where are we welcome?
posted by jomicur on
Gay people were horribly oppressed under Gyanendra’s regime. They were routinely targeted for imprisonment and torture, and a startling number of them, er, disappeared. The point of Miller’s article seems to be that they should have just lived with that state of affairs rather than take the only real option available to them to try and effect change. This makes no conceivable sense. But Miller rarely does. Anything that ANY gay group (or population) does to try and improve their lives rankles him, and he never stops saying so. It’s hardly limited to support of a Maoist group. Demonstrations, lobbying, lawsuits, media campaigns, name ANYTHING we do to try and move toward equality, however minimally, and Miller has some phoney-baloney explanation why it’s evil. He’s so predictable, and so tedious, it’s downright embarrassing. Maybe he should change the name of this site form Independent Gay Forum to Complacent Reactionary Gay Forum.
posted by Mark on
“The point of Miller’s article seems to be that they should have just lived with that state of affairs rather than take the only real option available to them to try and effect change.”
No, the point is that one does not align oneselves with self-described Maoists/communists. EVER
posted by Bobby on
“I’m in a dilemma here. I can’t stand how minorities tend to be hostile to gays.”
—Agreed. Although to be fair, people of all creeds, colors and cultures have been hostile to gays. Maybe it’s eronous to expect a fellow minority to be sympathetic. That is why I don’t support affirmative action. A black person is not better than a white person period, specially if he or she is homophobic, so why give them any breaks? I don’t get breaks, neither should them.
“However, I’m a racial minority myself, and some gay racial minorities have issues that might not be issues for white gays, such as racial discrimination in the gay community, which, if you say isn’t a problem, means you’ve been living under a rock or are in denial.”
—Hold on, to gays, everything is about looks. I’m white hispanic, I’ve been discriminated by people who are looking for darker hispanics. Then there’s the whites who are into blacks, or only into whites. Is that discrimination? Perhaps, but the acceptable kind. Now, if you’re talking about the days where blacks where asked to provide additional ID’s at gay bars, then fine, that’s real discrimination.
“However, when we try to form coalitions with mainstream gay organizations, people like Steve accuse those gay organizations of forming “leftist” coalitions.”
—That’s funny since to me all gay organizations are pretty much leftist coalitions, so wether you add blacks or whites doesn’t make any difference.
“I remember he had an issue with HRC or NGLTF (can’t remember which) having a survey about the particular issues that affect Asian gays. Why? Don’t know. We just want a voice. What are we to do?”
—Well, I agree with you. But to be fair, I’ve seen asians discriminate against others and be as bitchy as any white queen. And I love asians, I find them extremely sexy and nice, although lately many of them are becoming the white queens I tend to fear.
“Actually, I’m not addressing you personally. I’m trying to start a discussion with any reader, because this is a problem that gay racial minorities face. Where are we welcome”
—I know you’re not, and I appreciate your comments.
posted by raj on
Mark | January 6, 2007, 2:13pm |
No, the point is that one does not align oneselves with self-described Maoists/communists. EVER
Actually, if that had been Stevie’s point, it would have been better to have been stated “one does not align onself with self-described fundamentalist/conservative religionists, EVER” since Maoism/communism is indistinguishable from many of the other fundamentalist/conservative religions that appeal to the poor, downtrodden masses.
posted by Randy on
You know, sometimes people’s blind adherence to ideology is so tight, it makes them state patently absurd comments such as this one. China is officially a communist state, although they have liberalized their economy to a large extent. Nonetheless, I doubt Steve Miller would classify as a ‘market capitalist’ society.
And yet, gay people suffer from a lot less stigma than in, say Virginia. There are no laws against homosexuality, for instance, and one can be openly gay there without too much trouble. Not having a Christian or Muslim right wing helps quite a bit. I know because I travel to China fairly often. Of course, it’s not common, especially in rural areas. But in the larger cities, one can be openly gay without much trouble.
So Steve is quite wrong to make sweeping generalizations about how economic systems and the treatment of gays, as anyone could predict. If Steve were correct, then the free markets of 19th Britain and the US would have been the gay man’s paradise.
Steve, please try to at least think before you post, okay?
posted by Randy on
And let’s not forget that the semi-socialist governments of Britain and Canada (they have nationalized health care!) actually provide more rights to gay people than in the US today.
posted by grendel on
not to mention the Netherlands and Belgium …
posted by Bobby on
“And yet, gay people suffer from a lot less stigma than in, say Virginia. There are no laws against homosexuality, for instance, and one can be openly gay there without too much trouble”
—Why do you insist on looking at China with pink colored glasses? There ARE laws against homosexuality there, gay bars have been raided, people can get in trouble for advocating gay rights. For international adoptions, gays and singles are banned now. You’d think that a country with forced abortions and one-child policies would be eager to embrace gays. But alas, that’s not the case. The chinese are deeply rooted in Taoist dogma, which is not gay friendly.
I don’t mind gays being leftwing, but I wish they could speak honestly about other countries.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because, Bobby, the point of Randy’s statements is not to extol China; it’s to bash the United States.
The irony, of course, is that Randy is ranting about how antigay the US is and how pro-gay China is on a website that, if it were in China, would very likely have been shut down and gotten Steve Miller arrested already.
And that really is the whole point; these gay leftists go on and on about how intolerable life is in the United States and how much better all these other countries are……but they refuse to leave here and go there.
posted by grendel on
OK, I shouldn’t do this, but what the hell …
I did. I went there. Canada to be specific, almost two years ago. Things are great here … I’ve never looked back. I’ve met a fair number here like me. So, NDT, you are once again over generalizing. Some gay leftists (though I’m more of a centrist) have voted with their feet.
You seem to have a problem with that some/all distinction in your “logic’
ps — hello raj
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 2:11pm |
Because, Bobby, the point of Randy’s statements is not to extol China; it’s to bash the United States.
I’m sure that you, when you get around to it, will tell us which part of the United States includes Nepal. I haven’t done a complete parse of the thread, but, as far as I can tell, except for you, nobody has mentioned the US, or any other country except China. Not even Stevie.
Grendel: hi. NYTimes board, correct?
posted by raj on
BTW…
grendel | January 9, 2007, 3:04pm |
So, NDT, you are once again over generalizing. Some gay leftists (though I’m more of a centrist) have voted with their feet.
Don’t blame you about voting with your feet. But don’t mind NDXXX. He’s a blogviator, one of many of the Mighty Righties for whom “leftist” (gay, straight or green) means nothing more than “I don’t like.” I refer to him as the “innumerate dissembler” largely because, if you read his diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain closely, he knows nothing about mathematics or numbers (he’s shown that many times) and he lies (“dissembling” is a fancy word for “lie”).
posted by ETJB on
Another year and still the same old loony clap trap from the gay conservatives? Gee wiz!
I have extensive history on the early gay rights movement in Germany during the late 19th century and the beliefs of Communists and Socialists and Anarchists in response to the politics of ‘sexual problems.’
The gay-feminist rights issues were a major split between Socialists and Communists in that Socialists were more willing to take a some what libertarian stance on sexuality then the Communists.
I am not too familiar with Nepal gay history but I suspect that old regime was perhaps at least as anti-gay as the new regime.
China legalized homosexuality sometime in 1997. I think that the age of consent is around 18. Forming any sort of indepedent political or social club is likely going to get you into trouble in a left or right wing authoritarian government.
posted by grendel on
raj
yep, that’s me. the same grendel from the NYTimes board. I only look in here once in a while. In the past there have been some good discussions going on. It seems, however, that this board is now suffering from the same problems the Times had — a couple of fools with too much time on their hands and too few ideas in their brains monopolizing every thread who bring intelligent discussion to a grinding halt (which is in all likelihood their intent)
anyway, nice to see a familiar “face”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I haven’t done a complete parse of the thread, but, as far as I can tell, except for you, nobody has mentioned the US, or any other country except China.
You might want to read farther, then:
And yet, gay people suffer from a lot less stigma than in, say Virginia.
Or, if that one wasn’t enough, here’s another:
And let’s not forget that the semi-socialist governments of Britain and Canada (they have nationalized health care!) actually provide more rights to gay people than in the US today.
And as to the rest of your attempts at characterizing me, Raj, they should be taken in the context of coming from someone who has difficulty, as I have demonstrated, telling time or realizing that Alabama is part of the United States.
Now, as to Grendel:
I did. I went there. Canada to be specific, almost two years ago. Things are great here … I’ve never looked back.
Mhm….and that’s why you want the US to change so badly so you can come back.
I say bon voyage and applaud you for being willing to actually act. But if Canada were the paradise you make it out to be, you wouldn’t be wasting so much effort whining about the United States.
posted by grendel on
NDT — You’re in luck. I typically don’t respond to trolls, so this will likely be the last post I address to you. You are lying (once again). I haven’t whined one bit about the United States. My only substantiative comments so far have been to decry yours and your cohorts’ obvious problems with logic. Unless your ego is so inflated that you conflate criticizing you with “whining” about the United States … But in that case, you have even more serious problems then I thought.
go run along now, and try to play nice.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT — You’re in luck. I typically don’t respond to trolls, so this will likely be the last post I address to you.
Yes, Grendel, I’ve noticed you have a habit of claiming you “don’t do” something, and then going ahead and doing it anyway.
posted by Randy on
It’s quite surprising how one’s statements can be twisted by some people here. I took issue with a comment of Steve Miller’s, which was this: “only under market capitalism with its recognition of individual autonomy (rather than collectivism) and a civil/economic sphere not under the thumb of government bureaucrats/cadres/party hacks do gays have the freedom to socialize, organize and come out”
Only under market capitalism? Not true, of course. Gays have the freedom to socialize and come out in China, one of the few remaining communist countries in the world. I know because I’ve been there numerous times. If you go to Shanghai, you will see more openly gay men walking around than even NYC. It is not a gay man’s paradise, of course, but neither is Virginia. Try walking hand in hand with your partner is various parts of Virginia and see what I mean. And yet, in many parts of China, you can. And no, Bobby, the laws against homosexuality were repealed some time ago.
How this can be construed as hating America, I don’t know. I spoke only of Virginia, not the US. Of course, the US is much better for gays than China. I wish Virginia were a better place for gays, but it isn’t. And now there is a law that prevents gays from even entering into certain types of contracts with each other.
But Steve’s comment was that ONLY free markets allow gays the ability to socialize and come out. This is patently not true. There are many socialist and semi-socialist societies that allow gays the ability to socialize and come out. If Steve’s comment was correct, than the opposite would be correct, that in non-free market economies, gays would NOT be free to come out. But this is not true either.
If Steve’s theory is correct, then the United States and Britain in 19th century had a much free market than we have even now, and so gays, blacks and all other minorities would recognize individual automony. Clearly, they did not.
So my issue is with Steve’s theory that free markets have anything to do with individual rights. There might be a something of a correlation, but it is not at all clear. If it is true, then there would not have been slavery, women would have had the right to vote, and there would have been no official discrimination against immigrants, gays and other minorities.
So my point is this: Discrimination against gays or other unpopular minorities is more likely due cultural or religious factors, rather than economic ones.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, the US is much better for gays than China.
Indeed it is; gays have the ability to socialize, come out, and — which I noticed you left off repeatedly in your paean to how wonderful China was — organize.
So, in short, gays are far more free and have far more individual rights respected by the government in the United States than they do in China — despite your allegations to the contrary. Therefore, Steve is fully justified in making his statement.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 10, 2007, 4:00am
So, in short, gays are far more free and have far more individual rights respected by the government in the United States than they do in China…
Apparently, you really are too dumb to recognize that rights in the US are not only defined and circumscribed at the federal level, they are defined and circumscribed at the state level. Now, just tell us, what rights available to gay people anywhere in the US are not also available to gay people somewhere in the PRC.
And don’t just limit your answer to de jure rights, include de facto rights. We know from the Lawrence case that, in the US, homos are supposed to be free to engage in homo-sex, but, from news reports, states and localities are still trying work-arounds to permit them to pursue and harass homos.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, just tell us, what rights available to gay people anywhere in the US are not also available to gay people somewhere in the PRC.
Apparently you aren’t familiar with this incident.
In addition, you seem to be missing the irony that, were you in China making the same whines against the United States government on a similar website, it likely would be censored or shut down, and you would be subject to arrest and imprisonment for making them.
But I think it shows how divorced your leftist views are from reality, Raj, when you insist that gays are less free in the United States than they are in China.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 10, 2007, 2:11pm |
Apparently you aren’t familiar with this incident.
Don’t be silly. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with this,
this, and this in US jurisprudence. And those are only a smattering of the efforts made by the US, state and local governments to curb free speech. In the last case cited, the hecklers lost the right to veto free speech by only one vote in the US Supreme Court, with Justice Jackson, who did honorably at the Nuremberg trials, but who did a travesty in this case, thankfully in the minority.
Freedom of speech in the US? You really do have to be kidding.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, we do have freedom of speech in the United States, Raj. And while I understand your desperate need to rationalize your foolish statements by pretending we do not and that China is better in this regard than we are, reality does not back you up.
I notice as well that you said nothing about the freedom to organize, which you claimed Chinese gays have and American gays do not. Or freedom of religion, which American gays have and Chinese gays do not.
I wonder how many of your fellow leftists support your assertions that Americans have fewer freedoms than do the Chinese? Poor dears; likely they don’t, but as good gay leftists, they’re incapable of criticizing or contradicting another one. So they just quietly shuffle away, pretend it never happened, leave you to rant.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 11, 2007, 11:10am |
Yes, we do have freedom of speech in the United States, Raj.
You are certainly entitled to believe whatever your fevered brain wants to believe. I showed you differently. Case closed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let me explain to you the inanity of your statement, Raj.
In the last case cited, the hecklers lost the right to veto free speech by only one vote in the US Supreme Court, with Justice Jackson, who did honorably at the Nuremberg trials, but who did a travesty in this case, thankfully in the minority.
Apparently you equate the fact that a lawsuit was even brought in the first place with “negating free speech”. Meanwhile, you studiously ignore the direct suppression of freedom of speech, organization, religion, and others by direct action of the Chinese government, with no right whatsoever on the part of those affected to appeal.
And the fact that you and your fellow whiny leftists remain here in the United States, rather than emigrating to your gay paradise of China, speaks volumes as to your insistence that China is more free for gay people.
posted by dalea91505 on
AIUI, the modern gay movement began in social democratic Scandinavia in the late 40’s. This is where the first organizations and activism of the current type appeared. This in countries with active Social Democratic governments. A short time later, Holland joined in. So Miller’s statement is simply ignorant. It is the market oriented countries of the English speaking world where the gay movement was most held back by the hand of the state.
After about 40 years of agitation, gay partnership came to be accepted in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Holland followed, with gay marriage slightly later. Again in the non-market supremacy countries not the market oriented.
As we approach 40 years of US action, gay partnership/ marriage seems to be possible in the US. The 40 years seem to be important, don’t know why.
And still, the leftist, non market government of Lopez Obramador in Mexico has instituted gay marriage in the Federal District. His party controls that region. The market oriented party, forget the name, fights fiercely against it.
IGF is fascinating in that people who are consistently wrong, make elementary factual errors have an assured platform. Those who are correct and know the facts don’t. IGF is anti-meritcratic. Affirmative action for dumb people. Snark.
Anyhooo, it looks to me from the historic record that the best path for gay people is Social Deomocratic government. Somehow, the government of Sweden is a better friend of gays than free market zions like Georgia or Virginia.
Miller really needs to prove things before stating them.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the modern gay movement began in social democratic Scandinavia in the late 40’s
That’s revisionist socialist nonsense.
Stonewall marked the beginning of the modern gay rights movement, and that occurred in Cold War America — not a capitalist society per se, but certainly not a “social democratic” country like Sweden with its high taxes, high unemployment, and low wage growth.
And gay couples even in “right wing capitalist” parts of the USA have more freedom than gay couples in Sweden today. For instance, in “right wing” Montana, gay couples are allowed to adopt children, jointly own property in a tax-free living trust, and make medical decisions for each other.
In Sweden, adoption by gay couples is illegal (and condemned by the “social democrats” as “selfish”), joint relationship assets cannot be prevented from being taxed when transferred from one same-sex spouse to the other, and state social medicine bureaucrats (not one’s partner or spouse) makes the final call on all medical decisions.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Somehow, the government of Sweden is a better friend of gays than free market zions like Georgia or Virginia.
Perhaps if you’re the sort of gay who likes very high taxes, low wage growth, and letting the government overrule your medical and financial decisions in your relationship with your partner.
If you’re the sort of gay person who wants to adopt children and raise a family, designate your partner as a legal parent of your child if you choose to conceive (or even conceive a child through artificial insemination), invest your assets to ensure your partner gets to live in the house after you die without worrying about death taxes, and make your own financial and medical decisions within your family, it’s pretty lousy. None of these are permitted in “social democratic” Sweden.
posted by Bobby on
You’re quite correct, Northeast, in fact, I read that Sweeden you have to fill a ton of paper work for every little thing, there’s a booming industry of people helping sweedes deal with the government.
Ironically, it’s the rich in europe that are protected, as a reward for not putting their money in off shore accounts, they get extremely generous tax shelters.
Interestingly enough, the likes of George Soros (who wants to raise taxes in America) put their money in the Caymans.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I just find some of the assertions by lefties vis-a-vis Europe to be bizarre. The same ones who scream about what a hell-hole Florida is, because it has an anti-gay-marriage adoption law (something I oppose) will then wax romantic about how Sweden is a gay paradise — when it has an anti-gay adoption law that is tougher.
Even more weirdly, they’ll either posture themselves to argue that Sweden’s bigot law is “more legitimate” than Jeb Bush’s, or they’ll just not respond and then, three or four weeks later, they’re back pushing the whole “socialism is the best solution for gays” line.
I’d point out that this is evidence of the left’s continued abuse of gay concerns as a platform for their own rigid economic and social control policies (a very similar agenda to the right’s anti-gay politicking), but I think that’s becoming obvious to even casual observers as the Democratic Congress staunchly defends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, anti-gay immigration laws, anti-gay tax policies, etc., etc., etc.
posted by ETJB on
The ‘modern’ (if you mean post-WWII) gay rights movement started up in several democratic nations in the late 1940’s.