China: Sports Illustrated Goes Gay

[WillParkinson]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/china-sports-illustrated-goes-gay.html

The Chinese edition of Sports Illustrated last week featured the words "Go Gays!" on its cover to highlight a feature story on out Chinese athletes. The below clip recaps the SI article (with English subtitles).

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. That's real progress.

The modern definition of "left" is, at least in the USA, totally supportive of gay rights. But they haven't had it easy even in a lot of the traditionally defined "leftist" countries, including communist and socialist countries. There seems to have been a culture of machismo that played into the oppression a lot during the 60's and before. But the arc of history bends toward justice once again, good news.

[TheWraith]

2. Tolerance is valued by liberalism, but communism often cohabitates with authoritarianism.

A country can be economically leftist without being even the least bit liberal. China is a good example, though they're less and less "communist" in any meaningful way. But throughout history, most seriously leftist states have been based on an authoritarian platform, to consolidate power, rather than on anything we would recognize from American-style liberalism. Meanwhile, authoritarianism encourages and often requires the presence of one or more "enemies" to be demonized.

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. That's a good point.

Maddow has been talking about America's rightward drift since the 50s, Conservatives about its leftward drift. If you talk to the old timers, its pretty clear that its gone to the right fiscally and way to the left socially, so there's no natural marriage between the two ideas. Its sort of a weird construct, the liberal left.

[TheWraith]

4. You're right on target. People don't disassociate the social axis from the economic one.

A great many people--including both on the "left" and the "right"--have been sold a package of positions, with the idea that it's a coherent political philosophy, and we tend to ignore the bigger contradictions. For instance, the right wingers who think that taxation is stomping on their freedom, but that pot smokers need to be jailed for life. Or the belief that what gun you own is freedom, but who you have sex with isn't.

The inability to take a self-consistent stand on issues--which is most prevalent in the Republicans, but we're not immune--is what creates the hypocrisy that makes it impossible to have a decent dialog between the parties. Last summer, I was talking to the campaign manager of a Tea Party candidate. An actual Tea Party candidate, not one running as a Republican. As you might expect, she was pretty rabid on fiscal issues: too much spending, too much welfare, too much unemployment benefits, etcetera. But what might surprise you is that she was also pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage. And even though I disagreed with her on the financial stuff, I respected her opinions because they were consistent, in a true Libertarian vein. If Republicans were that way, we would actually be able to sit down and talk with them about how to run the country, and come to agreements like intelligent adults.