4 ms·

Poland scores much higher than South Korea. Poland has areas which have declared themselves LGBT-free zones. South Korea is higher on the Human Development Ind

Poland scores much higher than South Korea. Poland has areas which have declared themselves LGBT-free zones. South Korea is higher on the Human Development Index but is described as "developing". This is just nonsense, isn't it?

alkyon 7y ago
As gay person living in Warsaw I wouldn't move to South Korea. They have some serious legal problems like very limited or not existing anti-discrimination laws in employment, no right to serve openly in the military etc. Poland has openly gay politicians, party leaders and mayors - I don't think is true in South Korea. Also look at the comment below regarding Israel also featuring high in the ranking despite having serious problems outside Tel Aviv (a nice city BTW). Also so called LGBT-free zones are limited to south eastern Poland (ultra-catholic, conservative, something like bible belt in the US) - however stupid they are they are only declarative.
nec4b 7y ago
LGBT-free zones are places free of LGBT ideology and not LGBT people. Totally different meaning.
- glennpratt 7y ago
  The former is obvious, no place is LGBT free by fiat. Just more repressive.
- rewq4321 7y ago
  > Totally different meaning. If people aren't allowed to express who they are or their beliefs for fear of literally being bricked or kicked in the face [0][1] then you're banning LGBT people (and obviously "LGBT ideology" too). [0] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/07/bigots-attacks-pride-march-throwing-bricks-burning-rainbow-flags/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/07/bigots-attacks-pride-mar... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-l67aCX0vA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-l67aCX0vA
  - nec4b 7y ago
    I agree with you that if you ban LGBT people your are also probably banning LGBT ideology. But banning LGBT ideology does not mean banning LGBT people. Being a LGBT person does not mean that you automatically subscribe to an LGBT ideology.
    - detaro 7y ago
      This sounds awfully like "as long as you don't do anything visible you can be LGBT", with "LGBT ideology" being things like "you should be allowed to be recognizably LGBT in public", "you should be allowed to talk about being LGBT", ... At least that's how it usually goes when this argument comes out.
      - danbolt 7y ago
        I agree. This strikes me as a Motte-and-bailey attitude towards LGBT acceptance in society.
      - nec4b 7y ago
        Please don't ascribe ulterior meanings to my words. What I wrote was pretty unambiguous and what you wrote does not follow from my comment.
- danbolt 7y ago
  How do I determine what is “ideology” and what isn’t? If a person is LGBT, is their behaviour considered ideology? When does something simply being LGBT also become ideology?
  - nec4b 7y ago
    I will try with an analogy, please don't take it literally. Communist party (the ideology) stipulates that it represents workers (people) and that every worker is inherently on its side. But being a worker in reality does not mean one is a communist and banning the communist party does not mean banning the workers.
    - glennpratt 7y ago
      I feel like you are trying to paint a neat, ethical line where none exists.
    - danbolt 7y ago
      I think I understand your analogy. An individual LGBT person might not feel represented by elements of LGBT activism in the same way a worker might not about communism. I'm having trouble extrapolating that to what is/isn't ideology though. Could you explain a little more? For example, imagine that two people of the same sex meet in university. They start dating and eventually move in together after a year or two. Fast forward and they've been cohabiting for a decade. They share bills and go out to dinner and bicker about whose turn it is to do the laundry. Would labelling them as a couple be considered LGBT ideology? How about considering them common-law? It strikes me that "LGBT ideology" is a label you get to put on behaviours or traits when you decide you don't like them; otherwise it's "simply LGBT". I think I need more reasoning whether something shouldn't be allowed or not.
      - zozbot234 7y ago
        > For example, imagine that two people of the same sex meet in university. They start dating and eventually move in together after a year or two. Fast forward and they've been cohabiting for a decade. They share bills and go out to dinner and bicker about whose turn it is to do the laundry. Would labelling them as a couple be considered LGBT ideology? You mean, like, roommates? It depends what you mean by 'a couple', obviously. People who live together are not necessarily involved in any kind of intimate relationship. What if it was three people who just hang out informally for a while ("date") and then move in together to share their rent/bills/chores?

alkyon 7y ago

As gay person living in Warsaw I wouldn't move to South Korea. They have some serious legal problems like very limited or not existing anti-discrimination laws in employment, no right to serve openly in the military etc. Poland has openly gay politicians, party leaders and mayors - I don't think is true in South Korea. Also look at the comment below regarding Israel also featuring high in the ranking despite having serious problems outside Tel Aviv (a nice city BTW). Also so called LGBT-free zones are limited to south eastern Poland (ultra-catholic, conservative, something like bible belt in the US) - however stupid they are they are only declarative.

nec4b 7y ago

LGBT-free zones are places free of LGBT ideology and not LGBT people. Totally different meaning.

glennpratt 7y ago
The former is obvious, no place is LGBT free by fiat. Just more repressive.
rewq4321 7y ago
> Totally different meaning. If people aren't allowed to express who they are or their beliefs for fear of literally being bricked or kicked in the face [0][1] then you're banning LGBT people (and obviously "LGBT ideology" too). [0] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/07/bigots-attacks-pride-march-throwing-bricks-burning-rainbow-flags/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/07/bigots-attacks-pride-mar... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-l67aCX0vA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-l67aCX0vA
- nec4b 7y ago
  I agree with you that if you ban LGBT people your are also probably banning LGBT ideology. But banning LGBT ideology does not mean banning LGBT people. Being a LGBT person does not mean that you automatically subscribe to an LGBT ideology.
  - detaro 7y ago
    This sounds awfully like "as long as you don't do anything visible you can be LGBT", with "LGBT ideology" being things like "you should be allowed to be recognizably LGBT in public", "you should be allowed to talk about being LGBT", ... At least that's how it usually goes when this argument comes out.
    - danbolt 7y ago
      I agree. This strikes me as a Motte-and-bailey attitude towards LGBT acceptance in society.
    - nec4b 7y ago
      Please don't ascribe ulterior meanings to my words. What I wrote was pretty unambiguous and what you wrote does not follow from my comment.
danbolt 7y ago
How do I determine what is “ideology” and what isn’t? If a person is LGBT, is their behaviour considered ideology? When does something simply being LGBT also become ideology?
- nec4b 7y ago
  I will try with an analogy, please don't take it literally. Communist party (the ideology) stipulates that it represents workers (people) and that every worker is inherently on its side. But being a worker in reality does not mean one is a communist and banning the communist party does not mean banning the workers.
  - glennpratt 7y ago
    I feel like you are trying to paint a neat, ethical line where none exists.
  - danbolt 7y ago
    I think I understand your analogy. An individual LGBT person might not feel represented by elements of LGBT activism in the same way a worker might not about communism. I'm having trouble extrapolating that to what is/isn't ideology though. Could you explain a little more? For example, imagine that two people of the same sex meet in university. They start dating and eventually move in together after a year or two. Fast forward and they've been cohabiting for a decade. They share bills and go out to dinner and bicker about whose turn it is to do the laundry. Would labelling them as a couple be considered LGBT ideology? How about considering them common-law? It strikes me that "LGBT ideology" is a label you get to put on behaviours or traits when you decide you don't like them; otherwise it's "simply LGBT". I think I need more reasoning whether something shouldn't be allowed or not.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      > For example, imagine that two people of the same sex meet in university. They start dating and eventually move in together after a year or two. Fast forward and they've been cohabiting for a decade. They share bills and go out to dinner and bicker about whose turn it is to do the laundry. Would labelling them as a couple be considered LGBT ideology? You mean, like, roommates? It depends what you mean by 'a couple', obviously. People who live together are not necessarily involved in any kind of intimate relationship. What if it was three people who just hang out informally for a while ("date") and then move in together to share their rent/bills/chores?