Russia: New online “game”, Saw, lets players target gay people for real life torture

[metta]

• New online “game” lets players target gay people for real-life torture
  
  https://www.queerty.com/new-online-...arget-lgbtq-people-torture-real-life-20180427
  
  

 

[rareboy]

Because. Russia.

 

[Cormac135]

I would so buy this game.

 

[NotHardUp1]

There's nothing to buy. It's a sham for extortion.

Before it was blocked, users paid $3.25 for access to the list. The site charged individuals $24 to remove their names from the list.

It was a way to collect extortion money over the internet. How unlike Russia to have racketeering, no?

 

[Cormac135]

Fucking Russians.

 

[Alistair]

That's just disgusting, but we can't expect the current administration to say anything about it.

 

[nycguydowntown]

Fucking Russians.

This---they deserved years of dark boring communism . They think they are so smart and better than most people but they are years behind Western countries.

 

[Dominus]

I once saw a documentary about gay rights east of the iron curtain after ww2. There was an interview of an old man. Gay. He said only a few years after the war, nobody cared if you were a Jew or Gypsy. Meaning persecution of the various ethnic minorities stopped. Then he started crying and said for some reason people forgot to extend the same courtesy to the gays. All subtitled of course. I forget what language he was speaking in.

Thank you christianity for making it that much harder for us.

 

[NotHardUp1]

C'mon, you can't be that slow. Russians didn't warm to gays during their atheist period.

And it's not like it's blooming in China in absence of Christianity, or India, is it?

It's underground in most of the world outside a few progressive countries, and even here is closeted much of the time.

It's a big culture shift. It takes generations to grow. We're lucky we have made this much progress this fast.

Thinking homophobia is all about religious is ignoring sociology, psychology, anthropology, and politics. It's the equal of implying racism is an American prerogative. Visit Jamaica, Bermuda, Japan, India, Austria, and China and see if that holds true. Visit Africa where vicious genocides aren't about race, but about tribes.

Don't swallow the tripe of the day. Look about. It's not the Magic Kingdom out there.

 

[Pierresro]

That anyone would even post shit like this on here is crap grow up!

 

[Dominus]

C'mon, you can't be that slow. Russians didn't warm to gays during their atheist period.

And it's not like it's blooming in China in absence of Christianity, or India, is it?

It's underground in most of the world outside a few progressive countries, and even here is closeted much of the time.

It's a big culture shift. It takes generations to grow. We're lucky we have made this much progress this fast.

Thinking homophobia is all about religious is ignoring sociology, psychology, anthropology, and politics. It's the equal of implying racism is an American prerogative. Visit Jamaica, Bermuda, Japan, India, Austria, and China and see if that holds true. Visit Africa where vicious genocides aren't about race, but about tribes.

Don't swallow the tripe of the day. Look about. It's not the Magic Kingdom out there.

I'm not blaming on xchrianity alone. I don't deny the cultural roots of homophobia. But in this case, the orthodox church gives legitimacy to state sponsor homophobia.

Just remember that Christians everywhere on earth claims moral superiority. The argument that "but everybody else does it too" simply doesn't hold water to morally superior beings.

When the religion of (insert superstition here) claims moral superiority and legitimizes state sponsored homophobia in (insert country here), I will still make the same argument against said religion.

 

[NotHardUp1]

That anyone would even post shit like this on here is crap grow up!

For JUB, you'll have to be MUCH more specific. And, as for growing up, you'll have to be more adult yourself other than just spitting into a thread as a drive by. Seems childish. The Arabs hate Jewish shit. The French hate American shit. What makes your use of shit meaningful?

I'm not blaming on xchrianity alone. I don't deny the cultural roots of homophobia. But in this case, the orthodox church gives legitimacy to state sponsor homophobia.

Just remember that Christians everywhere on earth claims moral superiority. The argument that "but everybody else does it too" simply doesn't hold water to morally superior beings.

When the religion of (insert superstition here) claims moral superiority and legitimizes state sponsored homophobia in (insert country here), I will still make the same argument against said religion.

But, you didn't. And Christianity, nor Islam, nor Hinduism, nor Buddhism, nor Shintoism, is monolithic.

Until a year or two ago, all you could here on JUB about Buddhism was how it wasn't a religion, but a philosophy, and a peaceful one at that. Now we have the inconvenient truth of the Rohingya pogrom in Myanmar.

It's almost like it reinforces the argument that religion isn't necessarily the origin of hate, but the convenient tool of it from the majority over the minority.

And, who would be some of the strongest critics of Russia's oppression of gays? The progressive wings of Protestantism, of course, as well as secular critics.

It's just not monolithic. Plus, there is huge problem with Russian culture being macho, so homophobia is part and parcel with that whole combo pack of "me Tarzan, you Jane" crap.

 

[Dominus]

Well, no organization is monolithic. Permit me to invoke godwin's law and point to the nazis.

According to plenty of accounts, there were plenty of members in the nazi party that didn't want to kill off the Jews. Aside from the most obvious examples, witness accounts actually tell us there were many unnamed nazis that helped the helpless. Does this mean we can't make the general statement that nazis were evil bastards?

The fact remains that regardless of whether the source of hate is from religion or cultural roots, the majority of the said religion legitimize state sponsored hate.

I've been to plenty of churches that preach "God loves you, but..." Who are they fooling?

Right now, the Russian orthodox church gives the Russian state the green light to hate gay people. You can't make the argument that they are both divine revelations AND "but others hate, too".

 

[NotHardUp1]

No, but to imply that the Church exists to promote hate is misstatement no matter what church one is observing. It's the accumulated amalgam of all sorts of beliefs and taboos. The gay aspect may be front and center today, but it is but one small sliver of the totality, and barely mentioned before gay liberation arose.

Reducing it to that one aspect, just as in every area, is inaccurate view of what it represents to its members, and pointless to the degree that it doesn't actually impact the church, as its adherents know that the one-dimensional assessment is just a cherry picking, so aren't likely to be examining their values any time soon if that is the nature of the attack.

Humanity and being humane are the arguments, not "everything you've ever done is hate filled." It's not, and making it seem so, or presenting that as the only aspect of religion is self-defeating.

The Russian Orthodox Church is likely not the origin of the homophobia in Russia, but the tool of the culture that defines men as macho, and accepts no spot for men it sees as weak or feminized, which are synonymous to the Russians.

 

[Dominus]

I agree that the church does not exist solely to hate. However, the premise of every religion is divine revelation. The inherent problem with this is there can be no logical argument against divine revelation. None.

I would actually be more tolerant of a person's bigotry if it was based on anything other than religious belief. But the premise that one's hate is of other worldly divine revelation, it makes it impossible for any kind of change.

So, today it's the homes that christians hate. Yesterday, it was the interracial couples. The day before, it was (insert a minority group here). What's tomorrow going to be like? And there is no argument I can make against such attitude because of the divine revelation part.

Again, dont get me wrong. I'm not saying religion is the source of bigotry. But to say that it plays no huge part in perpetuating the bigotry with claims of divine revelation is bending over backward

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Fucking Christ.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I agree that the church does not exist solely to hate. However, the premise of every religion is divine revelation. The inherent problem with this is there can be no logical argument against divine revelation. None.

I would actually be more tolerant of a person's bigotry if it was based on anything other than religious belief. But the premise that one's hate is of other worldly divine revelation, it makes it impossible for any kind of change.

So, today it's the homes that christians hate. Yesterday, it was the interracial couples. The day before, it was (insert a minority group here). What's tomorrow going to be like? And there is no argument I can make against such attitude because of the divine revelation part.

Again, dont get me wrong. I'm not saying religion is the source of bigotry. But to say that it plays no huge part in perpetuating the bigotry with claims of divine revelation is bending over backward

Like much of our social norms, religion's interplay with them goes back too far to get a clear picture.

But the fact that you cite examples of social change here that happened in spite of religious traditions is a clear sign that the religions do change.

Usury was once illegal. Adultery was once a crime. Monarchs once claimed divine right with the sanction of the Church. Women were not allowed in the priesthood or pastoral role. And on and on.

That's what I meant about religion not necessarily being the source of prejudices so much as yet another institution of society that maintains the status quo. And, as you have noted, for a time, religion attempts to maintain the argument that divine truth can't be questioned, but strangely, once so much social pressure builds, the church mysteriously reinterprets their position and even the texts and follows society instead of leading it.

The Mormons do it most blatantly, but all do.

When I was young, divorce was a huge taboo. The Church tried to block it, fought it, and eventually, succumbed to the trend.

The Catholics most notably are top down and change on key positions even more slowly. Women are still banned from that priesthood. Similarly, Mormons have limited their women to breeders in their church, with nominal roles given that avoid challenging male dominance. About half of the Fundamentalists have similar denigration of women from important leadership roles. Oddly, the Pentecostalists, which includes many if not most of the superchurches and nondenominationals, have a strong tradition of women co-pastors, which is truly a unique pattern.

Although I'm against any church, Orthodox, Muslim, Baptist, or other, that sanctions persecution of gays, I think far greater harm to far more people is done by defining women as followers, as housekeepers/cooks/nannies, and perpetuating male dominance. The former problem imperils a very small number of people, but the latter, half the population.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

This---they deserved years of dark boring communism . They think they are so smart and better than most people but they are years behind Western countries.

They don't "deserve" anything. They cannot help having missed the whole of Enlightenment. But it's never too late. Not for the christian world nor for the muslim world. The hindu world may be harder to crack open.