in advanced democracies like :amerikkka:, human rights for minorities can only be decided by 9 unelected demons or unprecedented levels of violence
:live-tucker-reaction: "In the authoritarian American Dictatorship, rights are not created by the people, but rather thought to be ordained by their state-sanctioned deity. The Elders of Washington, the unelected quasi-religious governmental body gets to decide what and how rights are enacted. They can also be removed at any time at the whim of the state. The people have no say in the politics of their country, and yet they actually prefer it this way. They legitimately believe that their "rights," what little they may have, are actually threatened by their participation in the state, rather than the other way around."
The real way to give gay people rights is to vote for one of two parties who will eventually elect a judge to a comittee that is 30 years behind popular consensus and prone to wild swings due to being appointed when the previous occupants die, so it is a roll of the dice if your vote will ever matter on the subject.
the supreme court can also pre-empt public opinion, as it did on interracial marriage
The real response is that it's meaningless - if you focus on one of the handful of good things SCOTUS has done you fail to see the totality of a political entity consistently used to justify and protect the rights of slaveowners and capitalists at the expense of everyone else.
But further, Loving v Virginia was 60 years ago: Since then, the court has been captured by christian fascists in a deliberate effort to roll back any of the slim progress gained over that period. Debating about media polls obscures the court's awful history and it's current state as a direct tool by reactionary forces.
I know California has had referendums on gay marriage like 15 years ago so thats funny
I wonder if part of why Americans assume that the Cubans must have been heavily propagandized into supporting this is because we know that whenever we vote for things we make terrible choices and we can't imagine a system where people's opinions aren't decided by massive marketing campaigns funded by the Mormons.
As I understand it, they were heavily propagandized into voting for it, and that's a good thing. They government laid out the reasons why the change was necessary and did the work to educate the electorate on why it was important. Only after they were relatively certain it would pass did the government call for the referendum. This is the perfect way to do social engineering, imo.
One person's "propaganda" is another person's "education". This referendum started at the higher levels of the Party but the referendum process was lead by the People's Committees, neighborhood-tier political organizations all across the island, and I don't think it's accurate to describe this process as though it was some ivory tower elites educating the dumb populace about gay people.
Wasn't implying that the populace was dumb, at all. It takes an intelligent person to keep an open mind.
It was an actual concern voiced by the LGBT community in Cuba but its obviously absurd coming from an American stooge.
You know I'm used to seeing absolute galaxybrain pissbaby takes from libs on things like this but even for them this is a real headscratcher. I suppose there's really no level of mental gymnastics they are not capable of bending themselves to in order to rationalize a US capitalist dominated world order. If only we could harvest the energy from this red hot cognitive dissonance, climate change would be donezo.
Let's not pretend that the author is even remotely a social democrat. Calling this "The left wing of facsism" is way too generous
Side note, imagine the fury if Cuba passed a bill through their (rigged, undemocratic, one party, bad) Congress forcing their populace to tolerate LGBTQ people, that's dictatorship of the highest order!
"Shouldn't be subject to a vote." As opposed to what, 9 privileged geriatrics that were hand-selected by war criminals making the decision?
Yes, it’s an oligarchic constitutional republic.
And that’s a good thing ackshully 🤓
:wojak-nooo: Actually democracy is bad because the majority will repress the minority
:fidel-peace: Let's vote on changing the constitution y'allbecause the majority will repress the minority
i mean, that is a legitimate concern. this vote probably would not have gone in our favor 50 years ago... but then again the code wouldn't have been proposed back then either.
Yeah. I remember from Luna Oi's recent video the excellent point about how most Southern whites were in favor of Jim Crow, hence why democracy is not always a virtue in and of itself (granted, most Southern whites were informed by a societal structure imposed on them by the Southern elite in the first place). Also worth noting that, at the time of Loving v. Virginia, approval for interracial marriage sat at about 20%. It only reached the 50% mark in 1995 and now it is at 90%, over 50 years since repeal of "anti-miscegenation" laws.
Of course, we're giving them too much credit. What they really mean is that the majority people (workers) will oppress "aspiring entrepreneurs" by not allowing their own oppression. The same people who coined "majority tyranny" were literal slave owners, mind you.
Technically I don't think Alexis de Tocqueville (who is thought to have originated the term "tyranny of the majority"), nor JS Mill (who emphasized the concept heavily) were slave owners. But there are definitely plenty of criticisms that can be levied against either of them.
For some reason, I assumed it was Benjamin Franklin.
I think Liberals fundamentally understand this truth as well for the most part. Most know about how the US federal government overruled popular sentiment in the past for the better. (albeit, they will still insist on limp-wristed compromise unless pushed into more direct action by radical groups on the ground)
The problem is that suddenly top-down governing is no long acceptable outside the confines of Liberal Democracy and Capitalism. Clearly those are the “default” states, and any oversight by a central authority there is fine to keep things on track, but once you go into “radical” territory like a socialist democracy, clearly it means the government is forcing the people into it!
Actually democracy is bad because the majority will repress the minority
When "minority" is :porky-happy: : :wojak-nooo:
When minority is women/POC/LGBTQ: :shrug-outta-hecks:
It's also about to let 9 unelected lords remove those rights from the same minority group without any vote being held regarding it
I'm sorry, I meant justices, not lords
The BBC was trying argue religious and conservative groups in Cuba weren't actually voting against gay rights but against the Oppressive Communist Regime
If the Falun Gong didn't go too obvious with the Epoch Times paper being too pro-trump for libs to accept, then this would actually have happened by now.
:padme-meme1: You're on the Human Rights Watch?
:padme-meme2: You are watching for violations of Human Rights, right?
What...?
Edit: read the article, holy shit is it dripping with contempt and vitriol towards Cuba
What should gay people be subject to? The rulings of nine superprivileged asshats? Seriously what would have been better here WaPo
“Juan, step right up and claim your prize for the goodest and most democratic of boys in the Human Rights Watch”
:fidel-bat:
Yes, much better to let the issue of whether gay people deserve a fraction of the rights of the state be decided by the fractured visions of our Lovecraftian godhead
All presidents should be made to witness The Tower, and only those who achieve CHIM should actually assume office.
