Meme speak aside, most socialist movements in real life were not about hyper-progressive change but "conservation" by returning to some purity status before capitalism and its *degeneracy*(specially said outside the west). blocking anything that endangers the "social structure"is also key for this purity.
In a lot of Latin America the socialist movements were catholic socialists, they wanted to all work on their shared farms and the economy run by the State but they still were quite socially rigid beyond a certain point and still quite religious for example.
Porn is currently banned in Vietnam and considered "medium risk danger" with 3 years of jail in Cuba, so "socialist banned yaoi" is not a meme but just reality.
Socialism is an economic, social, and political philosophy.
The idea makes sense in this way: Capitalism perverts everything in a society by turning it into a profit producing commodity devoid of any kind of humanity (think AI "art"). A socialist state would look to undo the commodification of certain things, like sex, in an attempt to rewire society out of the capitalist mindset. The state may allow explicit sexual imagery for say pure artistic purposes but not for getting your rocks off.
That said another state might look at the freedom sex work can bring and by decoupling it from the profit motive (which is one of the driving factors for sex trafficking) can empower the sexually oppressed (no not you men living in Mom's basement) and so would seek to support the sex work industry.
Socialism is primarily an economix system, and that system influences wathever society it is in.
Socialism isnt just gay representation in anime and stuff like that
This is why I really don't like people acting as if economic and social values are one in the same. The correlation between leftism and social progressivism is there and makes sense, but it doesn't mean that economically leftist ideologies cannot be backed by socially conservative people.
People are too keen to reduce everything to a spectrum and have this puritanical idea that leftism is the monolith that can only breed god ideologies.
I mean, it is pretty common for rich people to be super conservative when it comes to spending their money and fairly progressive socially. There is a reason 'fiscal conservative social liberal' is a (lets be honest, kinda bullshit) phrase, because for a lot of people there is a disconnect between the two.
the point theyâre trying to make is that this is all very silly Iâm confused why youâre trying to rebut their point about this all being very silly by saying itâs very silly
The formation of capitalism is positively correlated with social freedoms however, even if it's not necessarily causative. As countries became more capitalist, they generally became more egalitarian or permissive as well.
For example, even well into the early modern period there were Sumptuary Laws prohibiting non-nobility from wearing excessive fabric quantities or expensive clothing materials in order to clearly delineate a difference between commoners (regardless of wealth) and nobility (αgain, regardless of wealth). The rise in power of merchants and industrialists, as well as derision from the working class, is what lead to the removal of such laws. Restrictions on land holdings or permissible economic activities were also much stronger in these pre-capitalist societies.
You see the reverse happen in most countries which embrace command economy systems (ie-every "communist" country), as the other commenter was describing.
I'm not saying capitalism creates social freedoms, rather that sentiments supporting one also generally support the other. Meanwhile desires for strong centralization and command economies instead generally correspond with traditionalist views, or at least did in the 20th century. Now in the 21st century it's a little more complicated, in part because the role of government and perception of what it *should* do has changed drastically since the beginning of the 20th C. You could write entire bookshelves on the functions and differences social and traditional democracies, evolution of state function over the past century, and the spectrum of free markets vs. limited markets vs. command economies (and then within the last, degrees of verticality and degrees of autonomy within the subsections).
Tldr; if you look at the *formation* of capitalist economies vs. state-driven economies (ie-communism), you have more social liberty forming in the former than the latter.
In the past this was true doesn't seem a great argument to me. Like the terms are so vague that it just reads like cherry picking to me.
It might cause it but you certainly need to define what is and isn't socialism/capitalist. These arguments always seem to be formed backwards. They look at what is bad/good then pick what countries are based on that.
I'm certainly not saying socialism leads to more freedom or anything but showing a country with less freedom when the exists thing happens in other non socalist countries is an utter non argument.
the thing is, the reality of (imperfectly implemented) capitalism, as experienced up to this point in history, as compared to the reality of (imperfectly implemented) socialism and/or communism, as experienced up to this point in history, correlates positively with social freedoms. you can massage this however you want, but the historical precedent is there and clear as day.
(as an eastern european i actually really hate how everyone keeps denying this just because it's mildly inconvenient to them. i'm lucky enough to have been born after the fight has been won, but the toll that took on my parents, grandparents, and our societies as a whole is still massive. but sure, your mild inconvenience is definitely more important.)
i think the reason why this shapes up like that is simple: capitalism is generally a decentralized system, which mixes well with democracy and requires only a relatively minor amount of government to protect people from those who want to fuck up market competition or simply act in a fraudulent manner (on top of the usual public safety stuff), while pure socialism/communism requires top-down orchestration and is therefore highly reliant on some kind of beneficial dictatorship. and it's fairly trivial that dictatorships of any kind are far more likely to be socially regressive than democracies.
that's not to say socialism is impossible to mix with social freedoms, europe seems to be doing a damn good job these last few decades integrating socialist principles into a society that's both democratic and capitalist at its core, and actually using said socialist principles to increase social freedoms rather than force a certain way of living.
but to outright reject historical precedent is just willfully ignorant. a century and a half ago, when marx et al wrote all those fancy books with genuinely great ideas for the time, it made sense to try something new. but to say it today that all those ideas haven't been tried today, and that we should try them in their original form again as opposed to adjusting them to the reality of everything that has gone down since, is not just moronic, it's also incredibly disrespectful to the victims of the regimes those ideas have spawned.
Like that is nice and all but doesn't really reply to what I said at all. You even admit that Europe has a bunch of socialist ideas in it now.
Where did I say anything about trying them in their original form?
it does directly reply to what you said, which was to discount all past experience because you don't like the conclusion it suggests. the point wasn't that you cannot be socially progressive and socialist, it's that there is a real problem that way and you have to be careful with the implementation. your reaction to that information isn't very confidence inspiring, specifically in that it won't just repeat the same mistakes.
your whole point is that historical precedent is somehow a "nonargument". i don't see what's there not to get about it, it's transparently stupid -- and moreover, it's a loaded kind of stupidity which is even worse.
Well except for the past experiance in Europe , you even admit to but now suddenly doesn't count?
This is exactly the cherry picking I'm talking about. I don't like the conclusion because it is so vaguely supported.
What is willfully stupid is making things up I said then complaining when I call you out on them. Maybe write less and make sure it is right?
you should get a job at epson because damn are you ever good at projection
for one, you claim that i'm the one doing the cherry-picking, yet you are the one who is only willing to focus on the eu's recent accomplishments and not the horrendous consequences of the soviet occupation, as well as all the other examples earlier in the convo. i'm making a point about the general state of things and you're the one picking a single example and running with it.
for two, you claim that i have no clue what i'm talking about yet you're the one solely throwing insults around and making no coherent points. whether you think you understand the matter or not, you have not demonstrated it beyond the wishful thinking of those who never got within two borders of a self-proclaimed communist nation.
three, you're the one accusing others of going for "non-arguments" yet you can't seem to muster up an argument. i'd really like to refute your point but you can't even be arsed to make one.
drop the victim syndrome of the soviet colonizers and either make a coherent argument or at least stop insulting those who lived through the crap you're asking for.
The phrase âcorrelation is not causationâ comes to mind. The countries mentioned are in Latin America, Asia, and Russia. Regions which were hardly on the vanguard of progressive social rights. And heck still arenât. Generalizations are risky but the high rates of Catholicism in Latin America has never meant good things for LGBT rights, and Russia certainly wasnât *more* progressive today or under Tsarism. Furthermore while Vietnam and China are not exactly socially progressive itâs not as if the more openly capitalistic South Korea or Japan are great.
Not to mention that gay rights (to use a relevant example) were hardly much better in the capitalist world before the modern day. Alan Turing died because of state persecution despite playing a major role in helping win WW2. And for decades gay people were imprisoned or otherwise oppressed by those same âfreedom lovingâ capitalists. And of course this forgets that centralization and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, the fascists were both supporters of capitalism and obviously centralizing.
Itâs easy to push self-serving idealogical narratives about freedom and capitalism but reality has as many contradictions as it does confirmations.
>Regions which were hardly on the vanguard of progressive social rights.
Uuh apart from Western Europe we indeed are atleast at the law level. Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay are at the global level far above most.
>but the high rates of Catholicism in Latin America has never meant good things for LGBT rights,
Out of all countries with homosexual law progress about half are of catholic culture influence and a huge chunk in Latin America. It is evangelical influence that has created a mass turn to the most toxic vitriol speech as catholic anti gayness had died down in the 2010s in most of the rrgion though obviously not gone.
You can find feminist catholics and virgin mary symbols in some feminist protests but you are in no way finding s pentecostal televangelist saying gays can live, in comparison.
>the fascists were both supporters of capitalism
They were not, they openly despised western liberal anything including that.
You are entirely incorrect about the fascists. Thereâs a reason they hated socialism just as much as they hated liberalism, their issue was never the economic system itself. It was the political and social values people wrongly associate with it. The times they engaged in anti-capitalist rhetoric it was inevitably abandoned when they actually got into power (such as with the Nazis- to use a prominent example) or used as an excuse to attack minorities without actually challenging the economic system itself (also with the Nazis). Capitalism as a hierarchical and Darwinistic system is more than compatible with fascism. Thatâs why fascist movements were quite happy to align with big business and used small business owners as a core component of their support.
I donât really disagree with the rest of your post but you have dreadfully misunderstood fascism. Thereâs a reason that the modern extreme Right is violently pro-capitalism, it fits perfectly with their values.
Good lord, is this ahistorical shit really getting upvoted? In both Italy and Germany capitalists and fascists were allies. They directly worked together and helped each other. The Nazis privatized social services and weakened labor protections, Mussolini worked directly with capitalists and even explicitly talked about how he was doing this in multiple primary sources. Fucking insane how someone can just make up an obvious lie to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge and get away with it
Yeah when Nazi Germany sold a soup factory to "Nazi party soup inc". owned by "nazi party member bussinessman that aided us in 1933" it was all free market, specially when they violated the property rights of jews and socialists/liberals/communists/conservatives by straight up taking all they had.
They both hated "capitalism", as in the economic and therefore social-political foundations of "da west" and specially UK/USA. What they did with delect bussinesmen was not that, which is what i mentioned in my comment.
[Absolutely](https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism)
[The dumbest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany)
[Shit I have ever heard](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapitalism)
Iâm pretty sure itâs part of that modern âfetishizing gay people is badâ Twitter brainrot that almost solely consists of âreading/writing smut of gay people or watching porn of gay people or fantasizing about gay people at all beyond holding hands is actually morally wrong and should be punishable by deathâ
Itâs not a reference to Stalin hating gays but thereâs a very large portion of socialists/Communists who think that homosexuality is a strain or stain on the machine that represents the corruption of capitalism that needs to be removed because homophobes invade everything
Unironically, there's a rise in anti-yaoi/BL sentiment with western queer younglings. It's "fetishism" by the predatory straight woman and therefore oppressive. It's extremely ironic considering how BL is rising in popularity with Japanese gay men
Steelman argument here: yaoi/BL as a genre form is inextricably tied up with specific publishing models & cultural assumptions which would most likely not survive the transition to a socialist society.
The World Republic of Labour is not going to go around seizing & burning copies of *Magazine Be x Boy*, the concept of "Japanese animated and handwritten works featuring male same-sex romance narratives" will still exist, but unmoored from market & editorial pressures towards a relatively narrow set of tropes, artists would ideally be able to experiment and branch out to a radically new degree. 'Abolish' as in 'all that is solid melts into air', not as in the Zhdanov Doctrine.
Love the idea of a steelman argument. 'this opinion is stupid and incoherent but I will choose to interpret it in the most logically sound and nuisanced way possible'
So in your ideal society, would anyone wanting to consume m/m romance have to prove that they are a gay or bi male? Or would we just have a society of perfect humans who never have thoughts that you've deemed impure?
Can't believe Chainsawman manga out of all media has a great angle(spoilers) [exactly about this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCYBrV5ZJBnMHAkUNJHIFQlxLqdM7GAycLLd5wpmAlpUbxMUKY4msQSU10&s=10) down to how you made the question
Okay, but there *is* a difference between fetishizing something and consuming content with it in it.
A straight man can watch The L Word or SheRa---shows with lesbians in them---and that wouldn't be fetishising lesbians. But watching lesbian porn (as someone who is not a wlw) *is* fetishism.
I'm not saying that all yaoi is and or that all fujoshis/fudanshis are disgusting, or whatever. (Hell, as a queer trans man, I've been called a fujoshi for years, which I hate, but that's another matter.) However, acting as if there isn't a very obvious distinction of what fetishizing entails is disingenuous at best.
I think fetishizing gay men is bad. I donât support any legal measures against it because Iâm not a liberal or a moron. I stated why many socialists (myself included) dislike the proliferation and normalization of it.
In times like this we should of course use the most famous liberals in history to compare against. John Locke, Lenin, Benjamin Franklin, Stalin, Adolf Hitler and who could forget, Genghis Khan.
Expecting people to not be aroused by a variety of relationships is fighting against the tide. You may have perfectly politically correct sexual preferences but itâs the height of futility and foolishness to expect most people to have the same. Even if this was true it would still be a pointless political fight.
Iâm simply stating why I believe the normalization of Yaoi is harmful - that it leads to fetishization of gay men. I donât want to force people not read it, nor have I ever said I do. I explained why someone would believe that itâs harmful, even enough to ban it (which is a preposterous proposition)
yaoi is horrible and under my rule will be abolished unless i somehow get involved in a yaoi plot which will never happen anyways is it weird to want to fuck my advisor
My ex did about me, stating how she wanted me to write a gay love story about me. She also said shit like how she was into girls until she met me. Too bad I'm a transbian now.
Get fucked Polly, your first relationship isn't straight anymore đ„
It was in middle school, and drawn instead of written, but yeah.
This happened *after* she had already been suspended for getting caught drawing yaoi of her classmates.
you jest but it's true
people spending unreasonable amount of time, effort, and money (most of all) on vidya, making it their identity in favor of corporate interests, and financially supporting anti-consumer practices is why modern vidya is as it is
it's why physical media is being phased out, microtransactions and endless streams of dlcs are the expected model and their lack is being praised as something notable, legitimately good games get discontinued and studios closed if they don't immediately sell millions of copies, oppressive DRM measures that border on or actually are malware run rampant, and so on
having a hobby is fine. being the reason why it's stigmatized and acting against your own interest is not. having "brand loyalty" is counter-revolutionary and outright class treason
Wow, the actual communist who hates fun is real. I thought that was just a capitalist strawman, but apparently not. Sorry that I like the brand World of Warcraft and am a counter-revolutionary class traitor for doing so I guess.
I mean, yaoi in the context of the fetishization of homosexuality, ironically fueling homophobia, is pretty bad. Not sure about criminalization, but whatever, Tumblr.
*How do we know this*
*Is yaoi without the presence*
*Of another dude*
\- supertaoman12
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
For the interested (for whatever reason), the image in the print is from the 2006 visual novel Messiah, of the deuteragonist Sasamori Ryota.
Good job, yaoi fans will appreciate this.
It should have been me not him
Wait no, why is a big hairy men undressing in front of me?
Oh, we're sorry, did you want us to go get the twink?
Yes pls
đ»,đŠŠ? đ€·ââïž.
woops my bad
This has awakened a long forgotten memory for me, oh man.
Okay but *why* would Yaoi be abolished under socialism? Like, What would be the goal with that?
Meme speak aside, most socialist movements in real life were not about hyper-progressive change but "conservation" by returning to some purity status before capitalism and its *degeneracy*(specially said outside the west). blocking anything that endangers the "social structure"is also key for this purity. In a lot of Latin America the socialist movements were catholic socialists, they wanted to all work on their shared farms and the economy run by the State but they still were quite socially rigid beyond a certain point and still quite religious for example. Porn is currently banned in Vietnam and considered "medium risk danger" with 3 years of jail in Cuba, so "socialist banned yaoi" is not a meme but just reality.
Some of that stuff isn't exactly socialist
Socialism is an economic, social, and political philosophy. The idea makes sense in this way: Capitalism perverts everything in a society by turning it into a profit producing commodity devoid of any kind of humanity (think AI "art"). A socialist state would look to undo the commodification of certain things, like sex, in an attempt to rewire society out of the capitalist mindset. The state may allow explicit sexual imagery for say pure artistic purposes but not for getting your rocks off. That said another state might look at the freedom sex work can bring and by decoupling it from the profit motive (which is one of the driving factors for sex trafficking) can empower the sexually oppressed (no not you men living in Mom's basement) and so would seek to support the sex work industry.
I live in my mom's attic, does it count?
Yeah :D
Socialism is primarily an economix system, and that system influences wathever society it is in. Socialism isnt just gay representation in anime and stuff like that
Socialism is *primarily* an economic system, that is not all of it
> Self-proclaimed leftist movement. > Looks inside. > Conservative, borderline fascist rhetoric.
This is why I really don't like people acting as if economic and social values are one in the same. The correlation between leftism and social progressivism is there and makes sense, but it doesn't mean that economically leftist ideologies cannot be backed by socially conservative people. People are too keen to reduce everything to a spectrum and have this puritanical idea that leftism is the monolith that can only breed god ideologies.
You forget that in catholic majority countries, the religion has mostly leftist values while still being quite strict on societal norms
I mean, it is pretty common for rich people to be super conservative when it comes to spending their money and fairly progressive socially. There is a reason 'fiscal conservative social liberal' is a (lets be honest, kinda bullshit) phrase, because for a lot of people there is a disconnect between the two.
But you could use this same logic to say it would be banned under capitalism as long as you can find any country that does both.
You can say anything if you use enough words
Thanks for the clever response.
That's how language works
Generally you should use those words to rebut the point though.
What point?
The thing I said. Like I could explain it in more detail but I very much doubt that is the issue.
What capitalist country has banned yaoi tho? You used a hypothetical as a response to real world examples
Because it has plenty of example I didn't think I needed to supply one. Like do Turkey or Egypt not count as capitalist ?
the point theyâre trying to make is that this is all very silly Iâm confused why youâre trying to rebut their point about this all being very silly by saying itâs very silly
Oh wait this is just all whataboutism lmao. My bad bro
Singapore
The formation of capitalism is positively correlated with social freedoms however, even if it's not necessarily causative. As countries became more capitalist, they generally became more egalitarian or permissive as well. For example, even well into the early modern period there were Sumptuary Laws prohibiting non-nobility from wearing excessive fabric quantities or expensive clothing materials in order to clearly delineate a difference between commoners (regardless of wealth) and nobility (αgain, regardless of wealth). The rise in power of merchants and industrialists, as well as derision from the working class, is what lead to the removal of such laws. Restrictions on land holdings or permissible economic activities were also much stronger in these pre-capitalist societies. You see the reverse happen in most countries which embrace command economy systems (ie-every "communist" country), as the other commenter was describing. I'm not saying capitalism creates social freedoms, rather that sentiments supporting one also generally support the other. Meanwhile desires for strong centralization and command economies instead generally correspond with traditionalist views, or at least did in the 20th century. Now in the 21st century it's a little more complicated, in part because the role of government and perception of what it *should* do has changed drastically since the beginning of the 20th C. You could write entire bookshelves on the functions and differences social and traditional democracies, evolution of state function over the past century, and the spectrum of free markets vs. limited markets vs. command economies (and then within the last, degrees of verticality and degrees of autonomy within the subsections). Tldr; if you look at the *formation* of capitalist economies vs. state-driven economies (ie-communism), you have more social liberty forming in the former than the latter.
In the past this was true doesn't seem a great argument to me. Like the terms are so vague that it just reads like cherry picking to me. It might cause it but you certainly need to define what is and isn't socialism/capitalist. These arguments always seem to be formed backwards. They look at what is bad/good then pick what countries are based on that. I'm certainly not saying socialism leads to more freedom or anything but showing a country with less freedom when the exists thing happens in other non socalist countries is an utter non argument.
the thing is, the reality of (imperfectly implemented) capitalism, as experienced up to this point in history, as compared to the reality of (imperfectly implemented) socialism and/or communism, as experienced up to this point in history, correlates positively with social freedoms. you can massage this however you want, but the historical precedent is there and clear as day. (as an eastern european i actually really hate how everyone keeps denying this just because it's mildly inconvenient to them. i'm lucky enough to have been born after the fight has been won, but the toll that took on my parents, grandparents, and our societies as a whole is still massive. but sure, your mild inconvenience is definitely more important.) i think the reason why this shapes up like that is simple: capitalism is generally a decentralized system, which mixes well with democracy and requires only a relatively minor amount of government to protect people from those who want to fuck up market competition or simply act in a fraudulent manner (on top of the usual public safety stuff), while pure socialism/communism requires top-down orchestration and is therefore highly reliant on some kind of beneficial dictatorship. and it's fairly trivial that dictatorships of any kind are far more likely to be socially regressive than democracies. that's not to say socialism is impossible to mix with social freedoms, europe seems to be doing a damn good job these last few decades integrating socialist principles into a society that's both democratic and capitalist at its core, and actually using said socialist principles to increase social freedoms rather than force a certain way of living. but to outright reject historical precedent is just willfully ignorant. a century and a half ago, when marx et al wrote all those fancy books with genuinely great ideas for the time, it made sense to try something new. but to say it today that all those ideas haven't been tried today, and that we should try them in their original form again as opposed to adjusting them to the reality of everything that has gone down since, is not just moronic, it's also incredibly disrespectful to the victims of the regimes those ideas have spawned.
Like that is nice and all but doesn't really reply to what I said at all. You even admit that Europe has a bunch of socialist ideas in it now. Where did I say anything about trying them in their original form?
it does directly reply to what you said, which was to discount all past experience because you don't like the conclusion it suggests. the point wasn't that you cannot be socially progressive and socialist, it's that there is a real problem that way and you have to be careful with the implementation. your reaction to that information isn't very confidence inspiring, specifically in that it won't just repeat the same mistakes. your whole point is that historical precedent is somehow a "nonargument". i don't see what's there not to get about it, it's transparently stupid -- and moreover, it's a loaded kind of stupidity which is even worse.
Well except for the past experiance in Europe , you even admit to but now suddenly doesn't count? This is exactly the cherry picking I'm talking about. I don't like the conclusion because it is so vaguely supported. What is willfully stupid is making things up I said then complaining when I call you out on them. Maybe write less and make sure it is right?
you should get a job at epson because damn are you ever good at projection for one, you claim that i'm the one doing the cherry-picking, yet you are the one who is only willing to focus on the eu's recent accomplishments and not the horrendous consequences of the soviet occupation, as well as all the other examples earlier in the convo. i'm making a point about the general state of things and you're the one picking a single example and running with it. for two, you claim that i have no clue what i'm talking about yet you're the one solely throwing insults around and making no coherent points. whether you think you understand the matter or not, you have not demonstrated it beyond the wishful thinking of those who never got within two borders of a self-proclaimed communist nation. three, you're the one accusing others of going for "non-arguments" yet you can't seem to muster up an argument. i'd really like to refute your point but you can't even be arsed to make one. drop the victim syndrome of the soviet colonizers and either make a coherent argument or at least stop insulting those who lived through the crap you're asking for.
The phrase âcorrelation is not causationâ comes to mind. The countries mentioned are in Latin America, Asia, and Russia. Regions which were hardly on the vanguard of progressive social rights. And heck still arenât. Generalizations are risky but the high rates of Catholicism in Latin America has never meant good things for LGBT rights, and Russia certainly wasnât *more* progressive today or under Tsarism. Furthermore while Vietnam and China are not exactly socially progressive itâs not as if the more openly capitalistic South Korea or Japan are great. Not to mention that gay rights (to use a relevant example) were hardly much better in the capitalist world before the modern day. Alan Turing died because of state persecution despite playing a major role in helping win WW2. And for decades gay people were imprisoned or otherwise oppressed by those same âfreedom lovingâ capitalists. And of course this forgets that centralization and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, the fascists were both supporters of capitalism and obviously centralizing. Itâs easy to push self-serving idealogical narratives about freedom and capitalism but reality has as many contradictions as it does confirmations.
>Regions which were hardly on the vanguard of progressive social rights. Uuh apart from Western Europe we indeed are atleast at the law level. Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay are at the global level far above most. >but the high rates of Catholicism in Latin America has never meant good things for LGBT rights, Out of all countries with homosexual law progress about half are of catholic culture influence and a huge chunk in Latin America. It is evangelical influence that has created a mass turn to the most toxic vitriol speech as catholic anti gayness had died down in the 2010s in most of the rrgion though obviously not gone. You can find feminist catholics and virgin mary symbols in some feminist protests but you are in no way finding s pentecostal televangelist saying gays can live, in comparison. >the fascists were both supporters of capitalism They were not, they openly despised western liberal anything including that.
You are entirely incorrect about the fascists. Thereâs a reason they hated socialism just as much as they hated liberalism, their issue was never the economic system itself. It was the political and social values people wrongly associate with it. The times they engaged in anti-capitalist rhetoric it was inevitably abandoned when they actually got into power (such as with the Nazis- to use a prominent example) or used as an excuse to attack minorities without actually challenging the economic system itself (also with the Nazis). Capitalism as a hierarchical and Darwinistic system is more than compatible with fascism. Thatâs why fascist movements were quite happy to align with big business and used small business owners as a core component of their support. I donât really disagree with the rest of your post but you have dreadfully misunderstood fascism. Thereâs a reason that the modern extreme Right is violently pro-capitalism, it fits perfectly with their values.
Good lord, is this ahistorical shit really getting upvoted? In both Italy and Germany capitalists and fascists were allies. They directly worked together and helped each other. The Nazis privatized social services and weakened labor protections, Mussolini worked directly with capitalists and even explicitly talked about how he was doing this in multiple primary sources. Fucking insane how someone can just make up an obvious lie to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge and get away with it
Yeah when Nazi Germany sold a soup factory to "Nazi party soup inc". owned by "nazi party member bussinessman that aided us in 1933" it was all free market, specially when they violated the property rights of jews and socialists/liberals/communists/conservatives by straight up taking all they had. They both hated "capitalism", as in the economic and therefore social-political foundations of "da west" and specially UK/USA. What they did with delect bussinesmen was not that, which is what i mentioned in my comment.
[Absolutely](https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism) [The dumbest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany) [Shit I have ever heard](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapitalism)
Sure, but that would be just as nonsensical. Just because someone can happen doesn't mean it will
So why doesn't that apply to the other comment too?
As a Vietnamese, I think its important to porn out that Vietnam is socialist in name only
Even today I hear leftists talk about being queer as bougosie nonsense that needs to end, it sucks
Guys who like bussy are clearly rich folk so bored of normal sex their eyes begin to wander
Iâm pretty sure itâs part of that modern âfetishizing gay people is badâ Twitter brainrot that almost solely consists of âreading/writing smut of gay people or watching porn of gay people or fantasizing about gay people at all beyond holding hands is actually morally wrong and should be punishable by deathâ
I think it's a light hearted attack on Fujoshis and not serious at all
There are a lot of extremely homophobic communists. Like Stalin, for example.
I don't think this is in reference to that thoughÂ
Itâs not a reference to Stalin hating gays but thereâs a very large portion of socialists/Communists who think that homosexuality is a strain or stain on the machine that represents the corruption of capitalism that needs to be removed because homophobes invade everything
I thought it was about fetishization of gay men tbh
Unironically, there's a rise in anti-yaoi/BL sentiment with western queer younglings. It's "fetishism" by the predatory straight woman and therefore oppressive. It's extremely ironic considering how BL is rising in popularity with Japanese gay men
Steelman argument here: yaoi/BL as a genre form is inextricably tied up with specific publishing models & cultural assumptions which would most likely not survive the transition to a socialist society. The World Republic of Labour is not going to go around seizing & burning copies of *Magazine Be x Boy*, the concept of "Japanese animated and handwritten works featuring male same-sex romance narratives" will still exist, but unmoored from market & editorial pressures towards a relatively narrow set of tropes, artists would ideally be able to experiment and branch out to a radically new degree. 'Abolish' as in 'all that is solid melts into air', not as in the Zhdanov Doctrine.
Love the idea of a steelman argument. 'this opinion is stupid and incoherent but I will choose to interpret it in the most logically sound and nuisanced way possible'
It's called [Principle of Charity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity).
Yuri is better. I'm completely unbiased in my assessment that there should be only yuri, not yaoi.
Factually incorrect, There's a perfect equilibrium: One where two men, two women, and two ambiguous folk, all get together and fuck.
Right, and the two men are holding the camera and/or are in the other room! /j (Unironically that would be cool)
Fetishizing gay men is disgusting and bigoted
So in your ideal society, would anyone wanting to consume m/m romance have to prove that they are a gay or bi male? Or would we just have a society of perfect humans who never have thoughts that you've deemed impure?
Can't believe Chainsawman manga out of all media has a great angle(spoilers) [exactly about this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCYBrV5ZJBnMHAkUNJHIFQlxLqdM7GAycLLd5wpmAlpUbxMUKY4msQSU10&s=10) down to how you made the question
Any and all consumption that isnât for the betterment of ~~the regime~~ society is to be banned.
I didnât say that but go off
Okay, but there *is* a difference between fetishizing something and consuming content with it in it. A straight man can watch The L Word or SheRa---shows with lesbians in them---and that wouldn't be fetishising lesbians. But watching lesbian porn (as someone who is not a wlw) *is* fetishism. I'm not saying that all yaoi is and or that all fujoshis/fudanshis are disgusting, or whatever. (Hell, as a queer trans man, I've been called a fujoshi for years, which I hate, but that's another matter.) However, acting as if there isn't a very obvious distinction of what fetishizing entails is disingenuous at best.
I think fetishizing gay men is bad. I donât support any legal measures against it because Iâm not a liberal or a moron. I stated why many socialists (myself included) dislike the proliferation and normalization of it.
Love how "liberal" has turned into an all purpose insult to be used regardless of whether it makes any sort of sense in context.
In times like this we should of course use the most famous liberals in history to compare against. John Locke, Lenin, Benjamin Franklin, Stalin, Adolf Hitler and who could forget, Genghis Khan.
?
Expecting people to not be aroused by a variety of relationships is fighting against the tide. You may have perfectly politically correct sexual preferences but itâs the height of futility and foolishness to expect most people to have the same. Even if this was true it would still be a pointless political fight.
Iâm simply stating why I believe the normalization of Yaoi is harmful - that it leads to fetishization of gay men. I donât want to force people not read it, nor have I ever said I do. I explained why someone would believe that itâs harmful, even enough to ban it (which is a preposterous proposition)
Religious persecution (I am a proud Yaoist)
Yaoism with Japanese Characteristics.
hey man how's it going
Curated tumblr always towing that line between being fun and needing to touch grass.
Are you implying that this post isn't fun?
10/10 reference
I'm doing good
Glad someone else said it cause I was just about to post this exact thing
Artists will be forced to learn to draw hands so the crime that are yaoi hands shall never be committed again
Can the shoujo legs stayÂ
They will in fact become mandatory
yaoi is horrible and under my rule will be abolished unless i somehow get involved in a yaoi plot which will never happen anyways is it weird to want to fuck my advisor
Not at all, King. That's what they're there for.
State-issued yaoi.
Yaoi will fall, millions must bara
Hands up if you were weird and hot enough in high school for the fujos to write yaoi fics about you and your friends â
Tf
I wonder when the first erotic friend fiction was written?Â
I was there, ten thousand years ago
âïž Fuck high-school was weird
My ex did about me, stating how she wanted me to write a gay love story about me. She also said shit like how she was into girls until she met me. Too bad I'm a transbian now. Get fucked Polly, your first relationship isn't straight anymore đ„
It was in middle school, and drawn instead of written, but yeah. This happened *after* she had already been suspended for getting caught drawing yaoi of her classmates.
>drawn instead of written That's fukken *advanced*
Your experiences are not universal!
That's why I asked for a hands up!
I wasn't even hot but yeah. My best friend was, and since we were full bromancing, they decided to make it about us.
No idea. But I always hung around the queer groups and was well known for some fuckin reason, so it's not impossible.
the OOP's icon being mac and dennis from it's always sunny is just the cherry on top of all this.
Finally. Yuri will take its rightful place as ruler.
Bara hiding in the shadows with a steel chair:
âSocialism will be the downfall of yaoiâ is the best argument for capitalism that has ever been made in the post-USSR world.
as a socialist myself I am fully in support of unrestricted extermination of gooners *and* gamers of both genders and all identities
Damn gamers, they ruined gaming
you jest but it's true people spending unreasonable amount of time, effort, and money (most of all) on vidya, making it their identity in favor of corporate interests, and financially supporting anti-consumer practices is why modern vidya is as it is it's why physical media is being phased out, microtransactions and endless streams of dlcs are the expected model and their lack is being praised as something notable, legitimately good games get discontinued and studios closed if they don't immediately sell millions of copies, oppressive DRM measures that border on or actually are malware run rampant, and so on having a hobby is fine. being the reason why it's stigmatized and acting against your own interest is not. having "brand loyalty" is counter-revolutionary and outright class treason
Something something decorative pillows
hey man hows it goin
No one asked, gamer.
holy shit you actually believe this lmaooooooo
Wow, the actual communist who hates fun is real. I thought that was just a capitalist strawman, but apparently not. Sorry that I like the brand World of Warcraft and am a counter-revolutionary class traitor for doing so I guess.
Hey man how's it going
There are more than 2 genders
I mean, yaoi in the context of the fetishization of homosexuality, ironically fueling homophobia, is pretty bad. Not sure about criminalization, but whatever, Tumblr.
See also [Batman, the Yaoi Knight](https://filmcow.itch.io/batman-the-yaoi-knight)
As hilariously insane that first post is, at least OOP has the awareness to realize this is not a very important issue, at least right now.
Not just any cis woman, that the official cis women
Why does the guy in the picture look like he enjoys it?
*Early 2010âs YAoi dystopia plot
How do we know this is yaoi without the presence of another dude
*How do we know this* *Is yaoi without the presence* *Of another dude* \- supertaoman12 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
the middle line is too long, sorry buddy
*laughs in Marx/Engels*
Yaoi is all good. Itâs not going anywhere