5 ms·

US Intel exec ‘actively responsible’ for driving anti-LGBTQ+ agenda in Africa

50 points by adrian_mrd 3y ago

dagmx 3y ago
The UN should really revoke their consultative status (edit: fixed typo). It is depressing that they continue to enable FWI’s hate mongering. Everything they stand for seems to run counter to helping the populace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International?wpr... They’re essentially extremely regressive missionaries.
- blagie 3y ago
  Consultative status is not consulting status. Was this a typo, a misunderstanding, or something else? Do you understand what consultative status means? If so, can you explain it in plain English? I'm reading online, but it's not really clear. A lot of these programs are (intentionally and should be) run on RAND terms. A lot are not. For the ones on RAND terms, it's often critical to protecting minorities whom the majority disagrees with, and making processes open and transparent. A majority of minorities we disagree with are wrong and get in as a result of this, but that's an okay price to pay for (1) the sake of the ones who we disagree with who are right (or just different) (2) checks-and-balances on governance and transparency (which the UN lacks otherwise). It often takes just one bad actor as a pretext to kill policies like these, and we're all worse off. I'm not really sure what FWI's relationship to the UN is. If there's an intentional partnership with bad actors, they should be cut off. If it's an open program, the costs of keeping it open almost always outweigh the benefits of excluding bad actors. There are also intermediate terms, such as making clear that being part of a program does or does not imply endorsement, and how a name can be used in advertising. The UN's name should not be used in misleading ways.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Sorry I did mean consultative but basically they’re invited to speak at UN run events and can carry the UN endorsement along with them. The Wikipedia article mentions a few UN events they’ve spoken at. It’s one of the things that has allowed them to have so much reach and credibility.
    - blagie 3y ago
      I'd actually like to see more of a citation. The trail starts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International Which references: https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Colonizing-African-Values.pdf https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Co... This claims an antagonistic relationship with the UN. I don't see the UN doing anything wrong on a quick skim, but rather this describes FWI abusing their relationship with the UN. There is also the (much more vague and less specific): https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-with-a-pro-family-antigay-agenda https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-wit... Wikipedia makes bold statements from very tentative language. Clicking through references here turns up documents like: https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/Resource_Guide_2013.pdf https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/R... Which is a FWI guide to the UN, but can't be confused for a UN document. Through the game of telephone, this somehow became referenced as if it were in publications attacking FWI. At least on 5-10 minutes of clicking, I can't find any specific, primary reference to the UN doing anything wrong. Last time I testified at a major public hearing, the person before me ranted and raved about brains and electromagnetism from household electronics. Were they crazy? Batshit crazy. Did everyone dismiss them? Yes. Did they have a right to do that? Absolutely. As a footnote, unfairly cutting crazy people out of conversations has two problems: 1) You can't talk to them and convince them otherwise. Conversations are two-way streets. 2) It gives them a huge soapbox. If a person ranting about EM waves impacting brains was shut out of public comments and unfairly oppressed by [corporations / government / etc.], if anything, that oppression would support their argument.
blagie 3y ago
[flagged]
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > Are closeted views better than public ones or vice-versa? Morality vs Capitalism. In Africa, it's beneficial for the corporation to hold closeted progressive views (and secret relationships) because of the business, legal, and cultural norms that currently exist. How to achieve progressive goals, within this reality? That's not directly relevant, but it's safe to say that the plan is to trade the struggle of personal loss vs existing culture, that moves the normative view forward, slowly. Is a corporation interested in that? No. Corporations will behave in their best interest, until there is rationale for dispensing with the short term benefits. > What should the employer do about it? A corporation will betray and punish individuals for personal behavior (generally if the details will be or have been made public), if it fits their economic goals. What should they do? That's a bigger question around the benefits that the industry provides. The more liberal the industry's purpose (like prophylactics or planned parenthood), the less likely the company is to open workers to persecution, so the answer is almost always "stop being assholes to your workers". eg NIKE, Apple, Disney - who is also an asshole corporation, although their industry is not as liberal in purpose, as their marketing department pretends. > What should the public do about it (e.g. boycotts / campaigns? ignore it?) Boycotts, campaigns, hit pieces, etc. Standard fare for attacking a capitalist corporation, where they will undoubtedly have to buy/suppress media in addition to the grassroots efforts. I wouldn't do business in Africa if I had to deal with this stuff, because I'm never going to be more than a small time player in industry X, so that's what I think. If I were a C level asked to go manage a factory, I would probably look for another job and take a salary hit, because I can't be part to that kind of suffering.
- flangola7 3y ago
  I'll help you with that -50
- tdeck 3y ago
  > Anger and hate aren't effective tactics. Anger and hate are two different things. You're attempting to conflate them to garner sympathy. Anger has historically been an invaluable motivator, including when fighting back against oppression. As for hate being effective, these people got a "kill the gays" bill passed in Uganda, so it seems that was pretty damn effective. > I'll also ask a serious question: Pretend for the moment that everything were 100% spot on, and an Intel employee were doing something which we all agreed was wrong. For example, the year is 1980, and they are in a homosexual relationship, or the year is 2020, and they're opposed to homosexual relationships. Is their homosexual relationship in 1980 trying to get millions of people beaten and/or killed? These are in no way equivalent and the juxtaposition seems to be implying that if we're OK with one we need to be OK with the other.
akomtu 3y ago
Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with? This agenda is unique to european nations, that aren't in a great shape to put it mildly.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with? The article is about an (anti-LGBTQ) agenda not something thar is anti-(LGBTQ agenda).
  - duckhelmet 3y ago
    “Planned Parenthood Federation of America honored the Pearl of Africa, a unique documentary from the inside of the Ugandan LGBT movement.” https://archive.is/BNBWP https://archive.is/BNBWP
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      That has nothing to do with this article, though.
      - duckhelmet 3y ago
        > That has nothing to do with this article, though. "Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with?"
duckhelmet 3y ago
[flagged]
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  Define, please, "family values".
  - duckhelmet 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - klyrs 3y ago
      And, of course, the death penalty for gay people.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      So adopted children are against family values? What should we do with orphans? Unless you mean generated by anyones sexual congress. So would children of affairs be family values then? What about Jesus himself? He was canonically generated without sexual congress.

50 points by adrian_mrd 3y ago

The UN should really revoke their consultative status (edit: fixed typo). It is depressing that they continue to enable FWI’s hate mongering. Everything they stand for seems to run counter to helping the populace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International?wpr... They’re essentially extremely regressive missionaries.

blagie 3y ago
Consultative status is not consulting status. Was this a typo, a misunderstanding, or something else? Do you understand what consultative status means? If so, can you explain it in plain English? I'm reading online, but it's not really clear. A lot of these programs are (intentionally and should be) run on RAND terms. A lot are not. For the ones on RAND terms, it's often critical to protecting minorities whom the majority disagrees with, and making processes open and transparent. A majority of minorities we disagree with are wrong and get in as a result of this, but that's an okay price to pay for (1) the sake of the ones who we disagree with who are right (or just different) (2) checks-and-balances on governance and transparency (which the UN lacks otherwise). It often takes just one bad actor as a pretext to kill policies like these, and we're all worse off. I'm not really sure what FWI's relationship to the UN is. If there's an intentional partnership with bad actors, they should be cut off. If it's an open program, the costs of keeping it open almost always outweigh the benefits of excluding bad actors. There are also intermediate terms, such as making clear that being part of a program does or does not imply endorsement, and how a name can be used in advertising. The UN's name should not be used in misleading ways.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Sorry I did mean consultative but basically they’re invited to speak at UN run events and can carry the UN endorsement along with them. The Wikipedia article mentions a few UN events they’ve spoken at. It’s one of the things that has allowed them to have so much reach and credibility.
  - blagie 3y ago
    I'd actually like to see more of a citation. The trail starts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International Which references: https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Colonizing-African-Values.pdf https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Co... This claims an antagonistic relationship with the UN. I don't see the UN doing anything wrong on a quick skim, but rather this describes FWI abusing their relationship with the UN. There is also the (much more vague and less specific): https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-with-a-pro-family-antigay-agenda https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-wit... Wikipedia makes bold statements from very tentative language. Clicking through references here turns up documents like: https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/Resource_Guide_2013.pdf https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/R... Which is a FWI guide to the UN, but can't be confused for a UN document. Through the game of telephone, this somehow became referenced as if it were in publications attacking FWI. At least on 5-10 minutes of clicking, I can't find any specific, primary reference to the UN doing anything wrong. Last time I testified at a major public hearing, the person before me ranted and raved about brains and electromagnetism from household electronics. Were they crazy? Batshit crazy. Did everyone dismiss them? Yes. Did they have a right to do that? Absolutely. As a footnote, unfairly cutting crazy people out of conversations has two problems: 1) You can't talk to them and convince them otherwise. Conversations are two-way streets. 2) It gives them a huge soapbox. If a person ranting about EM waves impacting brains was shut out of public comments and unfairly oppressed by [corporations / government / etc.], if anything, that oppression would support their argument.

blagie 3y ago

[flagged]

Supermancho 3y ago
> Are closeted views better than public ones or vice-versa? Morality vs Capitalism. In Africa, it's beneficial for the corporation to hold closeted progressive views (and secret relationships) because of the business, legal, and cultural norms that currently exist. How to achieve progressive goals, within this reality? That's not directly relevant, but it's safe to say that the plan is to trade the struggle of personal loss vs existing culture, that moves the normative view forward, slowly. Is a corporation interested in that? No. Corporations will behave in their best interest, until there is rationale for dispensing with the short term benefits. > What should the employer do about it? A corporation will betray and punish individuals for personal behavior (generally if the details will be or have been made public), if it fits their economic goals. What should they do? That's a bigger question around the benefits that the industry provides. The more liberal the industry's purpose (like prophylactics or planned parenthood), the less likely the company is to open workers to persecution, so the answer is almost always "stop being assholes to your workers". eg NIKE, Apple, Disney - who is also an asshole corporation, although their industry is not as liberal in purpose, as their marketing department pretends. > What should the public do about it (e.g. boycotts / campaigns? ignore it?) Boycotts, campaigns, hit pieces, etc. Standard fare for attacking a capitalist corporation, where they will undoubtedly have to buy/suppress media in addition to the grassroots efforts. I wouldn't do business in Africa if I had to deal with this stuff, because I'm never going to be more than a small time player in industry X, so that's what I think. If I were a C level asked to go manage a factory, I would probably look for another job and take a salary hit, because I can't be part to that kind of suffering.
flangola7 3y ago
I'll help you with that -50
tdeck 3y ago
> Anger and hate aren't effective tactics. Anger and hate are two different things. You're attempting to conflate them to garner sympathy. Anger has historically been an invaluable motivator, including when fighting back against oppression. As for hate being effective, these people got a "kill the gays" bill passed in Uganda, so it seems that was pretty damn effective. > I'll also ask a serious question: Pretend for the moment that everything were 100% spot on, and an Intel employee were doing something which we all agreed was wrong. For example, the year is 1980, and they are in a homosexual relationship, or the year is 2020, and they're opposed to homosexual relationships. Is their homosexual relationship in 1980 trying to get millions of people beaten and/or killed? These are in no way equivalent and the juxtaposition seems to be implying that if we're OK with one we need to be OK with the other.

akomtu 3y ago

Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with? This agenda is unique to european nations, that aren't in a great shape to put it mildly.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with? The article is about an (anti-LGBTQ) agenda not something thar is anti-(LGBTQ agenda).
- duckhelmet 3y ago
  “Planned Parenthood Federation of America honored the Pearl of Africa, a unique documentary from the inside of the Ugandan LGBT movement.” https://archive.is/BNBWP https://archive.is/BNBWP
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    That has nothing to do with this article, though.
    - duckhelmet 3y ago
      > That has nothing to do with this article, though. "Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with?"

duckhelmet 3y ago

[flagged]

TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
Define, please, "family values".
- duckhelmet 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - klyrs 3y ago
    And, of course, the death penalty for gay people.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    So adopted children are against family values? What should we do with orphans? Unless you mean generated by anyones sexual congress. So would children of affairs be family values then? What about Jesus himself? He was canonically generated without sexual congress.