Russia has now prohibited both transgender people and people who wear drag from getting driver’s licenses.
The Russian officials have provided a line of “reasoning” for this measure but it’s so stupid and idiotic that I don’t want to write what it is.
Hello, Putin loving Liberals! Are you still listening or have you turned away as usual when your idol shows his true colors?
The Putin loving liberals have psychological, rather than rational reasons for embracing Putin. It is amazing how little historical or political sense most people have. They have a moral sense (but not an ethical sense) and it is based on false reasoning. It has to do mostly with the postulate of IDENTITY. And then, there are considered to be contaminants to identity, which are morally obstructive. Identities have to be kept pure and taken out and scrubbed once in a while. Identities are never-changing, but there are dirty and clean identities. Some people’s identity is permanently dirty and others have a pure identity. Since being transgendered may be considered to be an act, rather than an identity, liberals will not rush to protect or defend this identity. The only really, really pure identities are those that simply are, but do not act. If you are acted upon, your identity gets to be highly valued as more pure than normal ones. But if you act, your identity becomes dirty, and more so the more you perform actions.
In terms of the binary formulation underlying this notion of identity, Putin is ‘ACTED UPON’ by the West and therefore his identity is relatively pure. Transgender people choose an identity (not just accepting the one they were born with), therefore their status is impure.
LikeLike
As an example, here is an intelligent person talking in a way that MAY be using the reasoning I outlined above (spurious metaphysical reasoning) or may be appealing to historical fact. The problem is that is is unclear what he is doing exactly, probably even to himself. One CAN have a justified line of reasoning in giving some recognition and support to the underdog. But too often, this is not what is occurring, but rather an attempt to reward those who have been ACTED UPON, whilst casting aspersions at those who are capable of ACTING.
See the following:
“My last word on the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Of course it is deplorable and outrageous and basically wrong to murder 12 people. The publication’s cartoons and jokes have been racist but that is no reason to murder people. (There is no reason ever to murder people). One can take a principled opposition to this atrocity without endorsing the positions taken by the journal. Many people have tried to justify Charlie Hebdo’s brand of humour by 1) emphasizing the general ‘leftist’ direction of the paper and 2) by pointing to the historical precedents of such humour being deployed against the Catholic church in France. However, France has a history of imperialist aggression and violent colonial domination in Muslim countries. There is a world of difference in crude humour about Catholicism (a dominant power and ideology within France and against which it is justifiable to polemicise) and deploying the same ‘humour’ against victims of French imperialism. The equivalent of the Charlie Hebdo brand of humour can be imagined by assuming an Australian ‘satirical’ journal making similar cartoons about Aboriginal people, or a German mag making such ‘jokes’ about Jews. Two wrongs do not make a right, and this is not a retraction of sympathy and solidarity for the murdered workers at the paper, nor is a justification of the atrocious murder.”
LikeLike
All that is needed to justify this or any other brand of humor is that there are people who find it funny. The victims of imperialism can go stand outside. As a victim of Russian imperialism, I have no desire to censor the numerous Russian publications that ridicule Ukrainians. I don’t choose to read them. Everybody else should do the same with the humor they don’t find funny.
LikeLike
Yes, so you are saying that psychological drives to punish and a real appraisal of real history ought not to be confused with one another (as they commonly are)? I agree.
I find it weird when someone resorts to childish platitudes like “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Like, “Listen children, we had murders and we had cartoons, but both of those wrongs don’t make a right!”
This way of thinking is such a huge part of the way the humanities are taught now. One easily can become infected with it, but one gets disinfected when one looks at what is being said to one: “A murder and a cartoon do not produce a single right action.”
To ponder in such a way is madness, immature and contemptuous of human thought.
LikeLike
Исламская составляющая парижского теракта – это частность. Кем бы конкретно ни была исполнена расправа в редакции Charlie Hebdo, ее заказчиком стал не ислам, а антиевропейский интернационал, возглавить который в последнее время пытается Россия.
http://mike67.livejournal.com/464311.html
LikeLike
Just seen this article:
A cop in Ukraine said he was detaining me because I was black. I appreciated it.
Being a black man in Ukraine showed me everything that’s wrong with race in the U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/02/a-cop-in-ukraine-said-he-was-detaining-me-because-i-was-black-i-appreciated-it/?tid=hybrid_control_strip_2
LikeLike
Even I don’t know the Russian for the n-word. Either this gentleman is translating very loosely for greater effect or the whole story is a fabrication.
Although, obviously it is true that Ukrainians are not used to seeing black people. When my sister traveled to China, everybody also behaved like she was an exotic animal.
LikeLike
I’m assuming the word was негр, which very easily gets misheard across languages as the n-word. That happened to me and I got very weird and aggressive with a Russian speaker who used the word in Polish (since he didn’t know the word murzyn).
LikeLike
Actually, that’s a good, polite word in Russian. The really offensive word is “black.”
It is true that there is insane racism in our countries but I can’t get past the story’s inconsistencies to appreciate it.
LikeLike
Since Ukraine is a sensitive topic, I want to stress that it isn’t an anti-Ukrainian article:
“Given the crisis underway in eastern Ukraine, it is difficult for me to pen this piece right now. I fear that discussing my challenges with race will be seen as distracting from “more important issues,” or worse yet, fuel anti-Ukraine rhetoric that insists the country is full of fascists. Of course, that narrative is completely false. Most Ukrainians despise fascism. In fact, I was so drawn to the openness and honesty of Ukrainian culture that, if I had the means, I would buy a home and live there part time – even as Russia backs rebel forces there.”
LikeLike
I do not see it as an issue of censorship or even self-censorship. So the analogies with rape or Ukraine miss the point. It is actually very simple. If we have a rally here in support of the freedom of speech in France or anywhere else, inspired by Charlie Hebdo massacre, I will come to this rally with the banner “I support free speech” or “You bastards cannot kill free speech”, but not “I am Charlie”. If there is a rally in support of Ukraine, I’d come with the banner “Putin, you bastard, go home!”, not “Ukraine for Ukrainian-speakers. ” Etc.
By the way, one Ukraine-related link (in Russian)
http://pauluskp.livejournal.com/598593.html
Sorry for off-topic but all this comment thread turned into off-topic anyway
LikeLike
Let’s be happy that it’s still ok to come to a rally and to use any banner you like. Because that’s what at stake here.
What I keep seeing, though, is a deluge of tweets and articles from freaks who say “these cartoonists offended my identity. ” People are such freaks. I’m sure they would love to live in totalitarianism as long as they can have their stupid identity.
LikeLike
Seriously, what the fuck is Russia even trying here?
LikeLike
They are bravely fighting against the degenerate Western values.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment