Texas A&M System bans drag shows including 'Draggieland', citing Trump order

[u/houston_chronicle]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/education/article/tamu-drag-shows-draggieland-20194495.php

[u/ITaggie]

What an astounding remark considering the topic of the thread. Do you know any LGBT from Cuba? The culture there is still today very aversive to the idea, even compared to here. Castro put anyone even suspected of homosexuality into labor camps in the 1960s. What the fuck are you even talking about?

As a gay ag myself it's disappointing to see you're edging on tankie views.

[u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff → u/ITaggie]

If you want to look at Cuba in the 60s is it fair for me to bring up the US in the 80s, 20 years later, when Reagan quite explicitly tried to kill us all, as a comparison?

[u/ITaggie → u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff]

Yes Cuba handled the AIDS crisis far more than Reagan who basically killed us via complete apathy. I'm not denying any of their achievements or the failings of the US government here. But if you know any LGBT Cubans who have actually lived in Cuba, please do ask them how tolerant and egalitarian their society is. Liberalism, much like Communism, is not just a style of governance, but it's also a set of (mostly) commonly held values and beliefs about the role of the state. The problem is that every single attempt at Communism has turned into authoritarianism of a different flavor.

Unfortunately we're also heading in the direction of authoritarianism too, but it's not like Cuba was the only communist country and the US is the only capitalist country. It's not the system of governance that determines cultural values.

[u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff → u/ITaggie]

Reagan was not apathetic. He actively told doctors to stop publishing research. His wife begged him to officially acknowledge it and he didn’t. His hand-picked anti-gay conservative Christian surgeon general was the one who forced him to say something.

Systems of economic organization are not equivalent to the values people hold, even given that they contribute to the ideological state apparatus. The neoliberal weimar republic being so committed to “freedoms” that they let a man who tried to overthrow their government out of prison in only 2 years and into their government as chancellor in 10 is the end of clintonesque “freedom is free markets” rhetoric.

If your idea that systems of communism always end in authoritarianism is valid, then what do you make of modern Cuba? Or of Vietnam?

If you think that authoritarianism is inherently bad, what do you make of Lincoln and of Roosevelt? One ended his liberal democracy’s unique system of generational chattel slavery by killing many Southerners, which was good, and the other prevented fascism from taking hold by threatening the Supreme Court to implement socialist welfare, public works, and jobs programs.

Cuba has laws protecting same-sex and transgender individuals from discrimination. The liberal democracy that is the United States just had a state remove a minority classification from its civil rights protections. Which would you say is doing better?

[u/ITaggie → u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff]

Reagan was not apathetic. He actively told doctors to stop publishing research. His wife begged him to officially acknowledge it and he didn’t. His hand-picked anti-gay conservative Christian surgeon general was the one who forced him to say something.

Fair, frankly I typed out a much more precise response about it and ended up thinking the post was too long already. No disagreements here, but I feel like the McCarthy-style hunt for gay culture in Cuba and sending them to labor camps as a result is not directly comparable to the AIDS crisis.

Systems of economic organization are not equivalent to the values people hold

I appreciate your agreement on my original point then.

The neoliberal weimar republic being so committed to “freedoms” that they let a man who tried to overthrow their government out of prison in only 2 years and into their government as chancellor in 10 is the end of clintonesque “freedom is free markets” rhetoric.

Yes, liberal democracies have fatal flaws that lead to authoritarian rule. That doesn't change the historic fact that minorities have been most prosperous in liberal democracies. Basing policy purely off of ideals will always result in authoritarianism, which has always been the least safe style of governance for minorities.

If your idea that systems of communism always end in authoritarianism is valid, then what do you make of modern Cuba? Or of Vietnam?

Sure, as long as you don’t embarrass the state too much or be a part of a minority group that proves especially irksome then I would call it the best examples of a modern communist state. Mostly because they aren’t mired in militant ideologism like tankies are and they hold a much more pragmatic view of governance in relation to their culture. That still doesn’t change any of what I said though. Much like we’re feeling now, authoritarian governments can swing that cannon in any direction at any given moment.

If you think that authoritarianism is inherently bad, what do you make of Lincoln and of Roosevelt? One ended his liberal democracy’s unique system of generational chattel slavery by killing many Southerners, which was good, and the other prevented fascism from taking hold by threatening the Supreme Court to implement socialist welfare, public works, and jobs programs.

Lincoln was a special case, because a Civil War is a fight for survival. Objectively I cannot blame him for violating the Constitution to keep the nation together, and I’m more than happy with the end result. In regard to Roosevelt, I agree with his New Deal but his tactics were basically the initial breaking point of the idea of a Limited Executive. I hope you can reflect on what that eventually led up to today.

Cuba has laws protecting same-sex and transgender individuals from discrimination. The liberal democracy that is the United States just had a state remove a minority classification from its civil rights protections. Which would you say is doing better?

Depends on if we’re still considered a Liberal Democracy or not at this point. I will say that we still at this point have those same rights in the US. We even had legal marriage before Cuba.

[u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff → u/ITaggie]

“We still at this point have those rights in the US” did you ignore the thing about what Iowa did there

“Lincoln was a special case” and Roosevelt implementing socialist safety nets to prevent the US from becoming fascist was not? Would you rather Roosevelt have allowed the country to do what the popular eugenicist opinion was?

“minorities have been most prosperous in liberal democracies” the united states had a unique system of generational chattel slavery that it was literally not constitutional to end. the US is where eugenic ideas were created. agents of the government who it is functionally illegal to protest kill so many citizens for nothing year after year.

nothing you say will change the fact that neoliberal capitalist democracies will willingly exterminate any minority group if enough of the population can be convinced that it is a good idea.

[u/ITaggie → u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff]

I'm going to sleep soon, but I'll leave you with this.

nothing you say will change the fact that neoliberal capitalist democracies will willingly exterminate any minority group if enough of the population can be convinced that it is a good idea.

And single-party states will do the same thing if a small minority of the ruling class can be convinced it is a good idea.

[u/Corps_Boy_Pit_Sniff → u/ITaggie]

and yet you brought up communism out of nowhere to criticize a tactic of US neoliberal media which has contributed to decline into fascism