I really don't think it is based to persecute people for having consensual sex or owning rainbow watches, but LGBT shit has become so psychotically degenerate and authoritarian in the west, and is pushing so hard for the same globally, it's easy to cheer for any sort of pushback.
Sadly, defense mechanisms against LGBT encroachment have become very necessary. But for the sake of individual citizens, I hope this will be one of those laws that is in the books to act as a deterrent and won't actually be enforced too strictly.
Law is not the same as morality. Are you making a rhetorical argument? Your post doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
Laws not only enforce cultural standards but they signal what the cultural standards are. If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Counterpoint: the rainbow watches might be the Moonswatch model and it's okay to bully someone who spends $250+ on a plastic (sorry, "bioceramic" which totally isn't plastic) watch with a quartz movement that's definitely not trying to pretend it's the Omega Speedmaster. Hell, when they first starting selling them, people were flipping them for $600+ and others were camping in queues in front of stores - for a watch that's basically a $20 Timex with the Omega logo and insane markup. It's like a bad Chinese knockoff except made by the company that owns the rights to the original. Look up what the Moonswatch looks like and if you see someone wearing it, piss on him.
I don't agree with locking people up for owning or wearing things, even if ridicule may be appropriate. If something's bad enough to require prohibition, then the sale of it should be restricted and the sellers who break those restrictions should be punished (which I still don't totally agree with), not the buyers.
I do support pushback against the destructive forces of progressivism and the LGBT cancer, but I'm not always going to agree with the form or severity of that pushback.
You know a lot more about watches than I do but it sounds like an awful trend of people wasting their money on status symbols, much like people who regularly line up for the latest iPhone. Consoomers gotta consoom.
Hahah don't read too much into my post, I just saw Swatch and I remembered the Moonswatch thing.
Yeah, it was an incredible display of dumb consumerism. Seriously, as I said, it's a company selling a cheap knockoff of a watch that they also own. (Omega is owned by Swatch, Omega is a luxury brand on about the same level as Rolex, and the Omega Speedmaster is pretty iconic. There's a good chance you've seen it in a movie or somewhere.)
It was so dumb. Most people either don't wear a watch at all these days, because everyone's got a phone in their pocket anyway. Some have a "smart" watch or something like a Fitbit. Some people wear a watch because they're used to doing so but don't care, maybe they just feel uncomfortable without something around their wrist, so they buy a cheap Casio or Timex or whatever that costs a couple of bucks and lasts ages and doesn't need servicing, and then there's a small community of people who appreciate watches for the craftsmanship (or, often, for the ridiculous price tags as a show of wealth) and collect them as a hobby, but they're largely into mechanical watches - no battery, just springs and gears. The Moonswatch combines the worst aspects of the latter two - it's really just a boring quartz watch, it offers nothing compared to a $10 Casio F-91W, but it's also pretty expensive for what it is. But it was still a huge sensation and people really camped in front of stores like when a new iPhone is being launched, it really blew my mind. It does look like a Speedmaster at first glance, but the only people who even know what a Speedmaster is are the same people who also know that the Moonswatch is a cheap, ridiculously overpriced knockoff. I just don't get it.
But whatever, r/watchescirclejerk (one of the few good subs remaining on leddit, at least last I checked) had a field day with it. A field year, really.
based
I really don't think it is based to persecute people for having consensual sex or owning rainbow watches, but LGBT shit has become so psychotically degenerate and authoritarian in the west, and is pushing so hard for the same globally, it's easy to cheer for any sort of pushback.
Sadly, defense mechanisms against LGBT encroachment have become very necessary. But for the sake of individual citizens, I hope this will be one of those laws that is in the books to act as a deterrent and won't actually be enforced too strictly.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Wearing symbols that openly defy that law? You’ll get what you get.
Law is not the same as morality. Are you making a rhetorical argument? Your post doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
Consent isn't the only factor that needs to taken into account.
There are reasons openly practicing sodomy was punished in every society since the dawn of civilization.
I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
Laws not only enforce cultural standards but they signal what the cultural standards are. If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Counterpoint: the rainbow watches might be the Moonswatch model and it's okay to bully someone who spends $250+ on a plastic (sorry, "bioceramic" which totally isn't plastic) watch with a quartz movement that's definitely not trying to pretend it's the Omega Speedmaster. Hell, when they first starting selling them, people were flipping them for $600+ and others were camping in queues in front of stores - for a watch that's basically a $20 Timex with the Omega logo and insane markup. It's like a bad Chinese knockoff except made by the company that owns the rights to the original. Look up what the Moonswatch looks like and if you see someone wearing it, piss on him.
I don't agree with locking people up for owning or wearing things, even if ridicule may be appropriate. If something's bad enough to require prohibition, then the sale of it should be restricted and the sellers who break those restrictions should be punished (which I still don't totally agree with), not the buyers.
I do support pushback against the destructive forces of progressivism and the LGBT cancer, but I'm not always going to agree with the form or severity of that pushback.
You know a lot more about watches than I do but it sounds like an awful trend of people wasting their money on status symbols, much like people who regularly line up for the latest iPhone. Consoomers gotta consoom.
Hahah don't read too much into my post, I just saw Swatch and I remembered the Moonswatch thing.
Yeah, it was an incredible display of dumb consumerism. Seriously, as I said, it's a company selling a cheap knockoff of a watch that they also own. (Omega is owned by Swatch, Omega is a luxury brand on about the same level as Rolex, and the Omega Speedmaster is pretty iconic. There's a good chance you've seen it in a movie or somewhere.)
It was so dumb. Most people either don't wear a watch at all these days, because everyone's got a phone in their pocket anyway. Some have a "smart" watch or something like a Fitbit. Some people wear a watch because they're used to doing so but don't care, maybe they just feel uncomfortable without something around their wrist, so they buy a cheap Casio or Timex or whatever that costs a couple of bucks and lasts ages and doesn't need servicing, and then there's a small community of people who appreciate watches for the craftsmanship (or, often, for the ridiculous price tags as a show of wealth) and collect them as a hobby, but they're largely into mechanical watches - no battery, just springs and gears. The Moonswatch combines the worst aspects of the latter two - it's really just a boring quartz watch, it offers nothing compared to a $10 Casio F-91W, but it's also pretty expensive for what it is. But it was still a huge sensation and people really camped in front of stores like when a new iPhone is being launched, it really blew my mind. It does look like a Speedmaster at first glance, but the only people who even know what a Speedmaster is are the same people who also know that the Moonswatch is a cheap, ridiculously overpriced knockoff. I just don't get it.
Here's an article about it, including a pic of one of the queues. The third pic has the original Speedmaster on the left and the Moonswatch (with a nasty-ass color scheme) on the right. https://www.fratellowatches.com/some-afterthoughts-on-the-omega-x-swatch-speedmaster-moonswatch/
But whatever, r/watchescirclejerk (one of the few good subs remaining on leddit, at least last I checked) had a field day with it. A field year, really.