Westerner virtue signals LG rights in Global South country, government stops the entire event and bans them from performing; liberals (local and international) are crying lol
Westerner virtue signals LG rights in Global South country, government stops the entire event and bans them from performing; liberals (local and international) are crying lol
Oh boy I thought I would cool it with the controversial LGBT stuff on this site but my country was pulled into the Western culture war this time (making my blood boil as per usual).
The British band The 1975 decided to do a stunt where 2 male band members kissed on stage. Which was proceeded by a rant and behaviours that was very liberal, only could be done by someone who grew up in a hyper-capitalist and alienated society in which individualism festers like a plague.
Needless to say, but this sort of "activism" doesn't work. That's obvious enough.
Then the liberals that consume too much American media (or lives in America) comes out of the woodwork bashing the government for over-exaggerating, and/or praising this pathetic attempt at lecturing the barbarians for their bad values. Liberals really showcase remarkable cynicism and hatred of the masses.
The sheer chauvinism in which you come into another country as a guest to perform and then lambast government policy in which you yourself are not affected by and in which you agreed to beforehand, while at the same time breaking many social norms - well that takes the cake.
Thank you for giving right-wingers ammo to further politicize and police "LGBT" communities in this country - making it worse for everyone here by enflaming the already vicious identity politics prevalent here (referring to the local identity politics - not commenting on the American one).
Good job, colonizer. I see that the Brits still think that anyone cares about what they have to say.
The coverage by the Rolling Stone and The Independent is as chauvinistic as ever. I'd prefer it if you just called us primatives directly instead of this whole fake concern for human rights.
Atleast Reuters had the decency to mention that:
Friday's incident sparked uproar on Malaysian social media, including among some members of the LGBT community, who accused Healy of "performative activism" and said his action could expose the community to more stigma and discrimination.
but in typical fashion doesn't mention that such behaviours, even if advocating for something the majority of the people agree, is not acceptable. It's a concert, not a political debate. Narcissistic behaviour and dysfunctional interpersonal skills (as determined by our culture and society at large) isn't something that should be promoted. Furthermore, this isn't even mentioning colonial history and ongoing imperialism.
Liberals needs to be sent into re-education camps for decades to deworm their minds from their terminal brain disease.
Alhamdullilah that most people here don't have it and recognised the chauvinism for what it is. (All non-english and many English replies on this tweet for example.)
You're viewing part of a thread.
Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.
Singapore is different from Malaysia, precisely because they were controlled differently. Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, same as Penang, Melaka and Dinding. The strait settlements were crown colonies, versus the indirect rule found in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.
Are we to ignore that the original reason for Singapore's expulsion was because of it's Chinese-majority that would have counterracted the power given to the Malay sultans?
progress for the LGBT community
Again - that word is used. "Progress"? Gender and sexual diversity was more progressive in 1600s Southeast Asia than 1900s Europe. What is "progress"?
Singapore can afford to be much more generous in terms of civil rights because of it's role as a tax haven for ASEAN economies. The material conditions could be anything but different.
Singapore can "progress" on civil rights while supporting imperialism in other SEA states. Until this contradiction is removed, LGBT people can't "progress" nor can they achieve liberation.
Also you seem to think that I believe that it's culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn't my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.
Until the contradictions within Malaysian society is resolved and managed, LGBT acceptance will never be reality with Imperialism being the primary contradiction.
Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only.
I agree, up to a certain point, although I would avoid using the word "race" for it's tainted colonial history. Malaysia-Singapore has never moved past their idiotic use of the word "race" precisely because they never fully decolonized.
Also this suggests that there aren't Singaporeans with Malaysian citizenship - which isn't the case. As we both probably know, Singaporean citizens are given til 22 to renounce any foreign citizenship.
Also you seem to think that I believe that it's culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn't my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.
This is not what I'm saying, I'm saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.
That contradiction you mentioned, then needs to be worked on now. Maybe there is no rush for those who are not part of the affected minority. I'm pretty sure that if you were, you'd be wanting to have this discussion moving as it is in Singapore.
If let's say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn't you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?
You say that Malaysia and Singapore share similar cultures, and I agree.
You say that because of this similarity, Malaysia should share the same "progress" of Singapore.
I say that it can't and it hasn't because they are not the same. They have different material conditions.
But then you come back and say
I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.
I don't know how to continue. It seems like we are talking past eachother.
If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?
The reaction against the unprovoked burning of the Quran is objectively correct because Islam is globally oppressed, through wars of destabilization and occupation in West Asia, through funding of Wahhabist and Salafist groups, through neocolonial control of the Persian Gulf states, through Orientalism and Racism. So when these oppressed countries reject this imposition of Western cultural values - it is only reactionary if you are on the side of the Imperialists.
The "conversation" that happens is just further policing of LGBT communities here in Malaysia - what "progress" is that?
When the government introduces guidelines for performers, which include not talking about sensitive topics as well as behaving appropriately, and it was violated by foreigners, shouldn't the government act? What would it look like if they don't act?
It would delegitimize their rule causing further destabilization, and wreck our economy. What use would that brief conversation on LGBT rights be for people in my country, geopolitically and materially? We don't need the colonizers and the imperialists themselves protesting on "our behalf" because it causes more problems than solutions.
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
Also, Singapore's "progress" is encumbered with problems too. Pink Dot SG, the foremost NGO advocating for LGBT rights in Singapore, had large Amerikan corporate sponsors like Facebook, Google and Apple until the government stopped it. We must question why these NGOs can easily associate themselves with Western Capital without an ounce of reflection. There are no easy answers.
You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it's ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country's law must be respected and you can't talk about it.
Your stance is different than mine. I see that in both scenarios, there is work to be done to improve the current situation for both and that expressing your concerns should be acceptable. But what you are stating would seem to indicate that this is only acceptable when the Quran is affected but not the LGBT community. If Quran, speak up, is LGBT, shut up and don't interfere.
You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.
No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.
The nature of the countries in question also affect the situation at hand.
It is you who thinks that being Queer and being Muslim is like collecting trading cards or are just mere identities rather than historically situated phenomena. This is why I treat them differently - because they are.
How is Turkish citizens expressing discontent on another country's policy in Turkey remotely the same as a British performer entering Malaysia for a concert then VIOLATING the social norms and practices?
It is insane that you are making a false equivalence between these two things.
Over here:
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
I explicitly mention that not all issues are to be resolved internally - there are valid avenues for internationalism.
But it seems like there is no point in continuing this conversation because I realise now we operate in totally different frameworks.
No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.
Correct, definitively not the same, islamophobia won't legally put you in jail for up to 20 years.