• BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    10 months ago

    LGBT itself is a concept created by western capitalists to divide the working people

    What the proletariat wants is sexual liberation and equal rights

    wtf-am-i-reading

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        10 months ago

        Some intersectionalists and Marxists themselves might argue that “identities” in that sense only exist in the context of minoritization. Of course, the quickest glance at Chinese law would show that queer people are minoritized (though less than in the US in many respects) and one could further argue that America is trying to rainbow-wash western cultural hegemony using its exports, but I feel like that’s not quite the position we see in the OOP.

        I think there is at least a plausible hypothetical context in which the censorship of those rainbow-washed exports makes sense, in the circumstance of wanting to develop a Chinese cultural understanding and acceptance of queerness rather than having the American understanding dictated to them. Whether this has any bearing on actual policy, I don’t know, but it’s imo the stronger version of the actual position taken by people rightly called social chauvinists.

        • oregoncom [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          At minimum, men loving men was completely normalized for millennia, None of our religions ever had weird clauses about “sodomy”. The first anti-queer laws and anti-queer attitudes were direct imports from the west in the 19/20th century. If you want to fight for queer rights it would be easier to appeal to the Chinese equivalent of “RETVRN” sentiments than associate yourself with the culture that both introduced homophobia in the first place and is using it as an excuse to commit genocide.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            10 months ago

            Was it completely normalized? I had the impression that it was sort of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing in that it wasn’t a basis of proactive persecution but it was kind of kept under wraps.

            • oregoncom [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              10 months ago

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Yue_Boatman

              The Chinese idiom, ‘斷袖之癖’ /tuan ɕiou ʈʂɻ̩ pʰi/ (the predilection of the cut sleeve), comes from a historical account wherein an emperor’s male lover fell asleep against his sleeve, so the emperor cut it off lest he disturb him. The idiom has then bore the signification of homosexuality.

              https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/im-cut-sleeve

              It was pretty openly practiced.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                10 months ago

                An emperor is a pretty small and potentially idiosyncratic sample. I’m not saying it isn’t the case, but this doesn’t go very far in helping to tell.

                • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  29
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  The cut sleeve story is about the Han Emperor Ai and his partner Dong Xian. During the Han dynasty, about a third of the emperors were bisexual. It was common enough that Sima Qian even included a chapter on it (佞幸列傳 Biographies of Male Favorites). Sons were supposed to succeed their father, not empresses, concubines, or male favorites. Nevertheless, Emperor Ai basically tried to make Dong Xian his successor. It failed spectacularly. Towards the end of the Han dynasty, we also know that General Liang Ji, his servant Qin Gong, and wife Sun Shou were a throuple. A century before them, General Huo Guang, his favorite Feng Zidu, and wife Xian were a throuple as well.

                  Homosexual relationships among the ruling class are attested back to the Zhou dynasty. Han Fei wrote about Duke Ling of Wei falling in love with Mizi Xia and giving him special treatment as a result. Historical criticism of these gay relationships concerned vanity and being unqualified, not the gay aspect. The male favorite phenomenon ended by the Song dynasty.

                  Eventually Confucianism caught on, placing emphasis on the (patriarchal, heterosexual) family. Of course, economic systems based on private property tend to develop these ideologies, so China shouldn’t be viewed as exceptional. They have Confucianism, we have the nuclear family. Whatever. Point is, heterosexual marriage and reproduction were socially important, but this wasn’t a rejection of homosexual relationships per se. It did however make it very difficult to have a lifelong gay relationship. The Ming-era bureaucrat Shen Defu wrote that in Fujian there was an institution of homosexual marriage where a younger and older man would move in together and sometimes adopt. After 20 years, the older one would find a wife for the younger man, and they’d break up. However, there are some exceptional cases.

                  There’s the Three kingdoms and Six Dynasties period (I think) story of Wang Zhongxian and Pan Zhang who are described to be “as affectionate as husband and wife.” They were intelligentsia rather than royalty. After a lifelong relationship, they died together and were mourned by everyone who knew them.

                  Speaking of the middle class (or whatever, sorry I’m not well versed in historical Chinese class systems), there’s a record stating that during the Liu Song dynasty (275-290 CE), MLM relationships were so common that it was causing estrangement between husband and wife. That said, people often exaggerate about this sort of thing. Men were legally allowed to have multiple lovers, but women were not. Women were also disadvantaged, so information on sapphic relationships is scarce.

                  In the 1700s, Li Guiguan and Bi Yuan exchanged vows of fidelity and were basically married. One was an actor, and the other was a bureaucrat. At the time, actors were low class, not respected, and overlapped with prostitution. As a result, there were centuries of legislation criminalizing these types of relationships, but enforcement wasn’t common. I think it was most consistently repressive during the Qing dynasty, but I forget all the details. Unfortunately, official-actor relationships are the only example of lower class homosexuality I can think of. Historians were not rolling with the LGBT peasantry. 😔

                  I would recommend reading Li Yu (1611–1680). He was a Ming dynasty writer that apparently wrote erotica (I have not read it) as well as gay stories (which I have read). He’s the legend that wrote The Fragrant Companion. It’s a sapphic play with a happy ending written in the 17th century. Incredible. There’s also an English translation published. He also wrote “A Male Mencius’ Mother” (Nan mengmu jiaohe sanqian 男孟母教合三遷) which is an MLM story. It’s weird, and expresses skepticism in lifelong gay relationships. It depicts pederasty basically. Good read if you’re studying this subject, but bad read if you just want to read gay romance.

  • Ocommie63 [she/her]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The second comment especially shows the complete lack of investigation of the commenter as it is directed towards Alunyanneгs, a comrade who lives in the global south

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    10 months ago

    I love how every picture from a non Western country is always some military or police figure or building behind some scary looking object like a fence or a wall. Even though the fence in this picture is clearly decorative, and the person in the picture is clearly in symbolic dress uniform. Nothing about what’s happening in the scene is functional for defense or control, it’s all decorative or symbolic, but western media always uses pictures like this to evoke some feeling of fear. It’s so disgustingly hilariously obvious and they always do it. I’ll never forget years ago some picture was floating around about some evil secret government camp, when it turns out the photographer literally put their camera in a drainage ditch to make it look like there was a wall, and used all sorts of gray filters to make it look bleak. When in reality it was just a nice building right beside a nice city block.

  • Pisha [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    See, this is what happens if you don’t ban people based on their transphobic votes on posts and comments. Now I know there’s 13 accounts on there that are absolutely rotten with brainworms. Uphold Transcomrade69-thought!

  • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    10 months ago

    My right-wing uncle says stupid shit like this. Claims that the US and EU are trying to queer the global south as a form of genocide because they’re scared of our rising birthrates.

  • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    While a bad viewpoint that’s not what social-chauvinism means and is in fact the opposite. Social-chauvinism is when you are pro-imperialist for your own country. This person is obviously not an imperialist and thus not a social-chauvinist, just a person with reactionary views

    • SpookyGenderCommunist [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      For clarity, I’m stretching the useage of Chauvinism here. While you’re correct that Lenin is referring to imperialists dressing their imperialism in leftist garb, Chauvinism, in general, is any kind of belief in the superiority of one’s group over another.

      OP clearly thinks they’re better then the queers and our supposed bourgeois decadence.

      I think leftists can have a little word play, as a treat

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah Lenin was specifically talking about parties in Europe that were supporting their respective country’s war efforts WW1 while also calling themselves socialists. Completely incoherent goofballs.

  • jabrd [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    The inevitable conclusion of libs using “but those brown people would kill you for being queer” to justify continuing to bomb the brown people. Thank you liberals for continuously using minority groups as your scape goat to do whatever evil thing you were already doing and getting them more vilified in the process. You are super cool and we are all grateful to get to watch you lose elections on our behalf big-cool