Fry's open letter / Anti-gay policies in Russian olympics

[hugh]

Ed Snowden's life is over, he may as well say anything at this point since he effectively died about 2 weeks ago

[Genevieve]

I think that's largely the idea of picking the biggest global sporting event to take a stand. Nobody can miss that transfer of information. The world does not approve Russia. This isn't how civilised humans act in 2013.

Oh get real with your fallacious appeal to authority, that doesn't hold up to reality anyway. Most of the world, even to this day, would support Russia in this atrocity. And you know what? Most of the world doesn't approve of liberal democracy either, but that's not stopping you, is it? "You" and "the west" aren't "the world". I wouldn't be against be against a private organization like the Olympics to take a stand, but I wouldn't involve national politicians for it though.

Go ahead and boycott Russia, never mind that boycotting them affects the whole economy, which not just homophobes and the government are apart of, but also LGBT and LGBT-friendly Russians. But fuck it, right? The only thing a boycott does is feed the egos of people who partake in it. So they can pad themselves on their backs for saying "they've done something" while they did nothing at all. Without looking at the bigger picture or what it actually means. It just turns 'Russia' into a symbol of 'bad stuff' that they rebeled against. Which is also kind of racist in way.

There are many things people can ACTUALLY do, using the internet and the trade of information, to improve the world. Like creating safe homes for Eastern European LGBT people in the west and using the internet to infiltrate local media in their own language, non-coercively, to share the information that these homes are here and influence Eastern European's beliefs on homosexuality). Free exchange of information will always be the most powerful tool in progressing society. Not international political affairs that cause rifts between cultures and countries.

I admit that while I'm sickened by this, I don't care enough to actually do something about it. But I'm not self-righteous about it by exploiting an international tragedy as a way to feed my ego and show the world what a good person I am.

I mean, that's done loads of good for Pussy Riot, hasn't it?

About as much as your vote has I reckon.

I also see a fair old moral distinction between a government being a bit too nosey and a government essentially legalising the kidnap and murder of homosexuals. I know that they both fall on the "BAD" side of your ethical Berlin Wall, but other people manage a slightly more granular approach to morality.

Something not being as bad something worse doesn't make it 'good' or excusable or not deserving of a mention.

[kay]

The world will never be saved if people can't even listen enough to each other to work out how to save the fucking world together.

[scspkr99]

Most of the world, even to this day, would support Russia in this atrocity. And you know what? Most of the world doesn't approve of liberal democracy either, but that's not stopping you, is it? "You" and "the west" aren't "the world". I wouldn't be against be against a private organization like the Olympics to take a stand, but I wouldn't involve national politicians for it though.

Then most of the world is wrong. I disagree with the suggestion that most of the world would support Russia in this atrocity btw, it may be that the rest of the worlds position aggregated is anti LGBT but it doesn't follow that they would support these type of atrocities. I don't have a commitment to liberal democracy either fwiw because I don't think morality requires it, it does require that we don't imprison consenting adults for their sexual preferences.

Go ahead and boycott Russia, never mind that boycotting them affects the whole economy, which not just homophobes and the government are apart of, but also LGBT and LGBT-friendly Russians. But fuck it, right? The only thing a boycott does is feed the egos of people who partake in it. So they can pad themselves on their backs for saying "they've done something" while they did nothing at all. Without looking at the bigger picture or what it actually means. It just turns 'Russia' into a symbol of 'bad stuff' that they rebeled against. Which is also kind of racist in way.

Unless of course the boycott is successful and leads to better treatment for LGBT people. Maybe we should ask them?

There are many things people can ACTUALLY do, using the internet and the trade of information, to improve the world. Like creating safe homes for Eastern European LGBT people in the west and using the internet to infiltrate local media in their own language, non-coercively, to share the information that these homes are here and influence Eastern European's beliefs on homosexuality). Free exchange of information will always be the most powerful tool in progressing society. Not international political affairs that cause rifts between cultures and countries.

The US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 it hasn't resulted in long term relations between the two being severed. Obviously relations at the time were at a low but countries redefine their relations all the time. The stuff you are suggesting above has it's place but it's not all of it. You are always going to see governments interfering in trade relations as a bad thing but that's a consequence of an outlook that takes you to some pretty difficult places. We're also talking about individuals making a statement and increasing the sharing of information by raising the issue. It helps the signal rise above the noise.

I admit that while I'm sickened by this, I don't care enough to actually do something about it. But I'm not self-righteous about it by exploiting an international tragedy as a way to feed my ego and show the world what a good person I am.

Sickened but not caring enough can be added to the list of virtually spotless fresh frozen light yet filling and military intelligence

Something not being as bad something worse doesn't make it 'good' or excusable or not deserving of a mention.

No but there's not always a need to conflate the two.

[Genevieve]

Then most of the world is wrong.

Yes, this is what I said. Magma made the fallacious appeal to authority saying that if most of the world disapproves of something, it's wrong. Not me.

Unless of course the boycott is successful and leads to better treatment for LGBT people. Maybe we should ask them?

Why? They might be wrong about it too and hurt about it in the long run. I wouldn't murder someone if they say it could save their kid.

The US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 it hasn't resulted in long term relations between the two being severed. Obviously relations at the time were at a low but countries redefine their relations all the time

Yep they were, that was in the cold war. And there were a lot of other things in that time that override something like a boycott..

Government boycott also are different from some guys boycotting Russian products. I was commenting on people refusing to buy Russian products. Not a government boycotting an event from a different government.

. The stuff you are suggesting above has it's place but it's not all of it. You are always going to see governments interfering in trade relations as a bad thing but that's a consequence of an outlook that takes you to some pretty difficult places. We're also talking about individuals making a statement and increasing the sharing of information by raising the issue. It helps the signal rise above the noise.

Opening a communication that could realistically decrease communication, for once.

No but there's not always a need to conflate the two.

I don't. In basically all instances, I'm always expressing my preference for 'less bad' than 'all bad' (I'm a devil for suggesting that child labour isn't as bad as child death or child prostitution). But there is nothing wrong with pointing out similar things to make a point. Something can be similar without being as severe.

[scspkr99]

Why? They might be wrong about it too and hurt about it in the long run. I wouldn't murder someone if they say it could save their kid.

LGBT have the greatest interest in this issue so their interests count for more, as does their opinion. We aren't talking about murdering someone to save a life as there's then the question as to why the murder victims life is of less consequence than the life saved. In the absence of a compelling argument as to why this would be worse for them I'll cede to them.

Yep they were, that was in the cold war. And there were a lot of other things in that time that override something like a boycott..

Absolutely and if the countries can recover from that then they can recover from a boycott here. Bigger issues have been resolved there's no reason to think this may be any different. That said your talking about individual boycotts as per below.

Government boycott also are different from some guys boycotting Russian products. I was commenting on people refusing to buy Russian products. Not a government boycotting an event from a different government.

I recall an old thread where you stated that you were opposed to anti-discrimination legislation stating a shopkeeper has no need to be told who he has to have in his shop. Why then do you think it appropriate to dictate to the consumer who they should buy from?

a communication that could realistically decrease communication, for once.

we don't know this. What I think we are safe to deduce is that real change on this issue will only come from internal pressures within Russia. What this does is get the topic discussed. Consider what a moral act is? It's generally something that we can consider partially in terms of it's consequences. It would appear that the moral consequences of accepting this behaviour is insufficient to prevent it, maybe getting the consequences clear make people consider. You want a small state, right, no state ideally, without government protection your argument relies on the market to address social issues this is the market addressing a social issue I'm not sure what your objection is.

I don't. In basically all instances, I'm always expressing my preference for 'less bad' than 'all bad' (I'm a devil for suggesting that child labour isn't as bad as child death or child prostitution). But there is nothing wrong with pointing out similar things to make a point. Something can be similar without being as severe.

So I get your point I think your comparison is weak I don't think the state spying on it's citizens is in anyway equivalent to state sanctioned violence. I also think this demonstrates a weakness in your overall ideology. It seems the foundation of your ideology to oppose force because someone disagrees with your morality, this is precisely the current experience of Russian LGBT, and it's being essentially endorsed by the state yet you oppose individuals boycotting those goods based on their morality. Your commitment to opposing force seems subservient to your commitment to a market that becomes less free as soon as you oppose a boycott.

I agree with you regarding child labour. It's still fucking awful though.

[Genevieve]

LGBT have the greatest interest in this issue so their interests count for more, as does their opinion. We aren't talking about murdering someone to save a life as there's then the question as to why the murder victims life is of less consequence than the life saved. In the absence of a compelling argument as to why this would be worse for them I'll cede to them.

There's an absence of an argument for why the LGBT community's opinion on this is more important than someone else's point of view.

If the LGBT community collectively decided that we should capture and torture every homophobe, should this be taken into more consideration? Solutions should be judged by their own merits, not by who holds them.

Absolutely and if the countries can recover from that then they can recover from a boycott here. Bigger issues have been resolved there's no reason to think this may be any different. That said your talking about individual boycotts as per below.

That was at a time when OVERAL relations between the west and the USSR were warming, as opposed to the current situation where Russia's relationship to the west is worsening. A dry patch of land won't hinder snowballing too much.

World War 2 has been resolved as well. Being able to resolve something shouldn't excuse instigating something.

I recall an old thread where you stated that you were opposed to anti-discrimination legislation stating a shopkeeper has no need to be told who he has to have in his shop. Why then do you think it appropriate to dictate to the consumer who they should buy from?

You don't actually believe criticizing one person's form of protest as ineffective is really the same as establishing a government that tells shopowners how to run their business and threaten violence if they oppose it, do you?

I can't innitiate force, but I can still suggest things. If I were walking around with a friend and they wanted to go to a store owned by someone who segregates, I would suggest them not to do that because it would put money in the pocket of an a-hole. Here individual boycotts work really well, because it pinpoints on the badguy and would force the shop-owner to change his policy if their segregation is unprofitable. But I wouldn't use physical force to change the shop-owners mind or to keep my friend from entering the store.

we don't know this. What I think we are safe to deduce is that real change on this issue will only come from internal pressures within Russia. What this does is get the topic discussed. Consider what a moral act is? It's generally something that we can consider partially in terms of it's consequences. It would appear that the moral consequences of accepting this behaviour is insufficient to prevent it, maybe getting the consequences clear make people consider. You want a small state, right, no state ideally, without government protection your argument relies on the market to address social issues this is the market addressing a social issue I'm not sure what your objection is.

If there is a way to pinpoint products that only homophobes and government officials benefit from, I'm all for it. But boycotting every Russian product will also hurt the income of any LGBT Russian.

I'm against anti-gun laws, but I'm also anti-guns. I would be against ANYONE buying guns, but I wouldn't force people not to buy a gun. I don't like every action that the market takes, but I see it as a reflection of collective will and as a stronger and more accurate voting mechanism.

So I get your point I think your comparison is weak I don't think the state spying on it's citizens is in anyway equivalent to state sanctioned violence. I also think this demonstrates a weakness in your overall ideology. It seems the foundation of your ideology to oppose force because someone disagrees with your morality, this is precisely the current experience of Russian LGBT, and it's being essentially endorsed by the state yet you oppose individuals boycotting those goods based on their morality. Your commitment to opposing force seems subservient to your commitment to a market that becomes less free as soon as you oppose a boycott.

I agree with you regarding child labour. It's still fucking awful though.

I argue from non-aggression, but I'm not 'an ideology', I'm a person and different individuals who argue from non-aggression may do it differently, so whatever you perceive as 'my flaw' might not be 'the ideology's flaw.

Now it's just getting into the territory of baselesness tbh. You think I can't bring up a less severe case of government oppression, I think I can. But it doesn't negate my recognition that one is of higher priority than the other. I think marriage should be privatized, but before we have "marriage equality" I'd rather see less imperialism. I was expressing my view that it's easy to turn on Russia as a bad guy wheras the British government is also culpible of some rather Third Reich'ish shenanigans that deserve more awareness (Stephen Fry made the izan analogy btw, not me).

You're making a big mistake by assuming 'the market doing it' makes something ok in my book.

[truhed]

I admit that while I'm sickened by this, I don't care enough to actually do something about it. But I'm not self-righteous about it by exploiting an international tragedy as a way to feed my ego and show the world what a good person I am.

[scspkr99]

There's an absence of an argument for why the LGBT community's opinion on this is more important than someone else's point of view.

No there isn't the argument as to why the LGBT community's opinion on this is more important as they are the ones most interested. They are the ones under attack and so I don't see how their interests in how to oppose them shoudn't be considered.

If the LGBT community collectively decided that we should capture and torture every homophobe, should this be taken into more consideration? Solutions should be judged by their own merits, not by who holds them.

No because then we have to consider the interest of the homophobe who's life you're considering taking. Remember that this is in response to your argument that sanctions may be worse for the LGBT community. There's an absence of argument as to why individual boycotts are bad.

That was at a time when OVERAL relations between the west and the USSR were warming, as opposed to the current situation where Russia's relationship to the west is worsening. A dry patch of land won't hinder snowballing too much.

This was 12 months after the USSR had invaded Afghanistan. This was not during a thaw in the cold war. This was pre star wars and Reagan.

War 2 has been resolved as well. Being able to resolve something shouldn't excuse instigating something.

No but the consequences of not initiating something may be worse than the consequences of initiating something. You haven't demonstrated this, regardless this is supposed to be about individual boycotts.

You don't actually believe criticizing one person's form of protest as ineffective is really the same as establishing a government that tells shopowners how to run their business and threaten violence if they oppose it, do you?

Are you criticising it for being ineffective though? If it's ineffective how is it hurting so many people? They aren't the same but your criticising a consumer exercising their rights to boycott goods while defending the rights of shopkeepers to boycott consumers it seems inconsistent.

I can't innitiate force, but I can still suggest things. If I were walking around with a friend and they wanted to go to a store owned by someone who segregates, I would suggest them not to do that because it would put money in the pocket of an a-hole. Here individual boycotts work really well, because it pinpoints on the badguy and would force the shop-owner to change his policy if their segregation is unprofitable. But I wouldn't use physical force to change the shop-owners mind or to keep my friend from entering the store.

If there is a way to pinpoint products that only homophobes and government officials benefit from, I'm all for it.

I agree with most of this. When you boycott or advise a friend to swerve a shop that segregates you aren't only hurting the shop owner but potentially the suppliers, producers, staff and family. When you boycott a countries goods you aren't looking to specifically hurt the homophobes but you are making a statement that not only are the attacks on LGBT wrong but so is that nations acceptance and tolerance of it.

But boycotting every Russian product will also hurt the income of any LGBT Russian.

And yet you refuse to consider they may know this and still advocate this. You aren't asking them remember.

I'm against anti-gun laws, but I'm also anti-guns. I would be against ANYONE buying guns, but I wouldn't force people not to buy a gun. I don't like every action that the market takes, but I see it as a reflection of collective will and as a stronger and more accurate voting mechanism.

And this is an expression of a collective will opposed to certain state sanctioned practices. People aren't advocating a boycott because homophobes are killing LGBT people they are advocating a boycott because they are doing so seemingly with impunity. This may be a way to contribute to changing that. The desire to change has to be local, it seems that local pressures are currently insufficient.

I argue from non-aggression, but I'm not 'an ideology', I'm a person and different individuals who argue from non-aggression may do it differently, so whatever you perceive as 'my flaw' might not be 'the ideology's flaw.

I was referring to positions you've posted not some general critique of libertarianism. I don't know your worldview and would hope not to criticise views you don't hold or hold your position against others that don't share it.

Now it's just getting into the territory of baselesness tbh. You think I can't bring up a less severe case of government oppression, I think I can. But it doesn't negate my recognition that one is of higher priority than the other. I think marriage should be privatized, but before we have "marriage equality" I'd rather see less imperialism. I was expressing my view that it's easy to turn on Russia as a bad guy wheras the British government is also culpible of some rather Third Reich'ish shenanigans that deserve more awareness (Stephen Fry made the izan analogy btw, not me).

And I am perfectly okay with anyone that would wish to boycott British goods because of a matter of their conscience. I am not holding that their conscience is right I'm just holding that their boycott isn't immoral.

You're making a big mistake by assuming 'the market doing it' makes something ok in my book.

I apologise if that's the way it reads. My point is that it seems that a stateless society requires a degree of self regulation through the market, this if anything is an example of that.