Oh boy I thought I would cool it with the controversial LGBT stuff on this site but my country was pulled into the Western culture war this time (making my blood boil as per usual).
The British band The 1975 decided to do a stunt where 2 male band members kissed on stage. Which was proceeded by a rant and behaviours that was very liberal, only could be done by someone who grew up in a hyper-capitalist and alienated society in which individualism festers like a plague.
Needless to say, but this sort of “activism” doesn’t work. That’s obvious enough.
Then the liberals that consume too much American media (or lives in America) comes out of the woodwork bashing the government for over-exaggerating, and/or praising this pathetic attempt at lecturing the barbarians for their bad values. Liberals really showcase remarkable cynicism and hatred of the masses.
The sheer chauvinism in which you come into another country as a guest to perform and then lambast government policy in which you yourself are not affected by and in which you agreed to beforehand, while at the same time breaking many social norms - well that takes the cake.
Thank you for giving right-wingers ammo to further politicize and police “LGBT” communities in this country - making it worse for everyone here by enflaming the already vicious identity politics prevalent here (referring to the local identity politics - not commenting on the American one).
Good job, colonizer. I see that the Brits still think that anyone cares about what they have to say.
The coverage by the Rolling Stone and The Independent is as chauvinistic as ever. I’d prefer it if you just called us primatives directly instead of this whole fake concern for human rights.
Atleast Reuters had the decency to mention that:
Friday’s incident sparked uproar on Malaysian social media, including among some members of the LGBT community, who accused Healy of “performative activism” and said his action could expose the community to more stigma and discrimination.
but in typical fashion doesn’t mention that such behaviours, even if advocating for something the majority of the people agree, is not acceptable. It’s a concert, not a political debate. Narcissistic behaviour and dysfunctional interpersonal skills (as determined by our culture and society at large) isn’t something that should be promoted. Furthermore, this isn’t even mentioning colonial history and ongoing imperialism.
Liberals needs to be sent into re-education camps for decades to deworm their minds from their terminal brain disease.
Alhamdullilah that most people here don’t have it and recognised the chauvinism for what it is. (All non-english and many English replies on this tweet for example.)
I agree with this at face-value but it is one contradiction of many within a postcolonial or Third World country.
If we agree that the primary contradiction is imperialism, than all other contradictions are subsumed under it. They become secondary contradictions affected by the primary.
If we agree that it is Imperialism vs Decolonization, or in other words, the freedom to exploit versus the self-determination of the Third World, then all attempts at rejecting this imperialist-capitalist system is progressive in nature and anything but reactionary.
Reactionary has a very specific meaning in Marxism, and is not just when it goes against Western values. Is it reactionary for countries to assert their own self-determination which will objectively lead to the uplifting of the lives of the people?
Reaction is primarily done by the comprador classes within a (post)colonial society, as it is in their interest to maintain the current or past capitalist status quo. The national bourgeoisie may not necessarily have to be comprador - and that is the view I hold about my current government.
Reactionary has a very specific meaning in Marxism, and is not just when it goes against Western values. Is it reactionary for countries to assert their own self-determination which will objectively lead to the uplifting of the lives of the people?
👏 👏
Too many people say “reactionary” is “thing I don’t like” so to evade analysis of material conditions. I cannot speak to conditions in SE Asia, but I know in West Asia the most progressive (anti-imperialist) forces are almost always labelled as “reactionary” by those who benefit from imperialist value transfer system.
To those downvoting, take a look at this thread. Then come back here and tell me if you have objections to the analysis.
Thread is copy-pasted down below.
Let me teach you Marxist 101 wrt this whole Matty Healy thing. The force that drives social change is primarily the internal contradictions of a society, which of course reacts to external influences. The primary contradiction internationally is imperialism at the moment. (1/9)
In a postcolonial world, formerly colonised nations are in the process of healing from colonial trauma. A component of decolonisation is the reclamation of one’s own culture as this affirms and empowers the identity of the colonised. (2/9)
But the colonialists themselves were responsible for epistemicide and cultural genocide. They imposed their norms, including the gender binary which is rooted in capitalism, onto our ancestors who had their own differing attitudes toward gender and sexual diversity. (3/9)
Anti-queer attitudes (in the capitalist sense) among Malays is learned. The knowledge of their previous attitude is repressed. This is not to say that their attitudes were perfect but change happens and the Malays would’ve made their own progress on this issue. (4/9)
The West has a track record of continuing the White Man’s burden, screaming human rights as an excuse to criticise our practice and lecture us on what to do. They’ve also weaponised social issues to incite colour revolutions in parts of the Third World. (5/9)
Matty Healy’s act of “protest” against our government is one that will backfire against us. A white Brit kissing a man to challenge the authority of Malaysia is a microattack on our right to decide for ourselves the values we follow. (6/9)
He also presents the act of two men kissing as a Western imposition onto our people. This adds ammo for a people who are ignorant of their ancestors’ nuanced attitude towards this stuff to label the LGBT people as a threat to national sovereignty. (7/9)
This is why what he did was reactionary. It was a reaction and it will incite reactions that inhibit the progress of our revolutionary efforts. It sabotages our attempt to improve the conditions of gender and sexual diverse people in Malaysia. (8/9)
The government will point to this and can use it as an excuse to enact further restrictions on the practice of the local LGBT community. We will have to face the reaction of the government which they see as necessary to maintain the status quo. So, fuck Matty Healy. (9/9)
I completely agree with you. The more that the West tries to pressure, bully and shame global south countries into adopting their values the more pushback and resistance they will encounter, and the more they will damage the image of the cause they are pretending to advance, even in cases when the cause itself is a positive one as is the case with this one. The problem is that the West does NOT care about these causes it claims to champion, it does NOT care about LGBT+ people as we can clearly see by what has been happening in the US and UK and how much the rights and even existence of LGBT+ people are increasingly coming under threat. For Britain aka “TERF island” of all places to attempt to lecture others on this is the height of hypocrisy. All they want to do is weaponize these issues to destabilize societies and to spread their tentacles of influence via various NGOs into global south countries, and they don’t give a damn if in the process of doing this their “rainbow imperialism” ends up actually having the opposite effect from what they claim to intend, namely of reinforcing reactionary prejudices as cultural progressivism becomes unfortunately associated in the minds of most people in developing nations with western imposition, arrogance, pretenses of moral and cultural superiority, and imperialism. This then just places the members of these marginalized communities at even greater risk, but of course the West doesn’t care about this.
This then just places the members of these marginalized communities at even greater risk, but of course the West doesn’t care about this.
I personally believe that this is intentional - it was never ever about rights. Making lives worst in Third World countries allows continuous migrant flows into the metropole, in addition to the other effects of destabilization you mention.
Maybe change your title at the very least then, shortening it to “LG” makes you look transphobic
I thought I replied to this but I didn’t
I only included LG in the title because the event only included them, although it was mb that I forgot to include the B.
Later on I did use LGBT but it was for convenience, in an ideal world there would have been alternative terminology for LGBT people.
Gender and sexual minority is one of them but I personally don’t like it.
And why I left out transgender people isn’t some transphobic plot - it’s because transgender people is treated differently in Islamic societies. They are their own special case and I don’t necessarily see why we should force the umbrella “LGBT” onto Third World constructs that don’t perfectly map onto it.
LG seems like a “joke” like lgtv yk what I mean
yeah I see that lmao
This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen on twitter. Thank you for reminding me why checking twitter is a horrible idea.
Singapore’s Mufti seems to be more understanding of the situation. Why can’t Malaysia try a more sensible approach?
Both countries share the same history (both were British colonies for example), believes and culture yet their stance is so different.
Singapore seems better at managing a multicultural society than Malaysia does. Not just on the LGBT aspect but on how they treat one another regardless of their race as well.
It seems that management is what results in Singapore thriving as it has.
Singapore’s Mufti seems to be more understanding of the situation. Why can’t Malaysia try a more sensible approach?
Sensible to whom? Western observers? Or the people that live here?
Singapore and Malaysia has a shared history for millenia, and already got seperated due to colonization. I agree with that. However, because of that, the situation is a bit more complicated and the material conditions between the 2 countries can’t ever be more different.
It’s like arguing that Taiwan Province or Hong Kong has LGBT rights so why can’t mainland China have it.
The questions we must ask: is there majority will for further LGBT protection and “rights”? Is this event where a White Guy trashes the government and then subsequently leaves for his next tour beneficial for LGBT people on the ground? What are the local and international conditions in which this “outrage” took place?
Why should we be mad at a government in which we already knows is forced to do this, which everyone here knows is homophobic, when this was clearly initiated by those outside the country that can’t even respect our normal cultural practices, and then tries to shoehorn a politically sensitive issue like homosexuality?
Is this for the benefit of our people? Or is it a very self-evident case of liberal virtue signalling?
It seems there is reason for the LGBT community to be mad at a government that had done little to nothing to improve the situation. Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.
Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only. If a Malay Mufti in Singapore can see a way forward for this issue, I’m sure they same should be possible in Malaysia.
Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.
Singapore is different from Malaysia, precisely because they were controlled differently. Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, same as Penang, Melaka and Dinding. The strait settlements were crown colonies, versus the indirect rule found in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.
Are we to ignore that the original reason for Singapore’s expulsion was because of it’s Chinese-majority that would have counterracted the power given to the Malay sultans?
progress for the LGBT community
Again - that word is used. “Progress”? Gender and sexual diversity was more progressive in 1600s Southeast Asia than 1900s Europe. What is “progress”?
Singapore can afford to be much more generous in terms of civil rights because of it’s role as a tax haven for ASEAN economies. The material conditions could be anything but different.
Singapore can “progress” on civil rights while supporting imperialism in other SEA states. Until this contradiction is removed, LGBT people can’t “progress” nor can they achieve liberation.
Also you seem to think that I believe that it’s culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn’t my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.
Until the contradictions within Malaysian society is resolved and managed, LGBT acceptance will never be reality with Imperialism being the primary contradiction.
Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only.
I agree, up to a certain point, although I would avoid using the word “race” for it’s tainted colonial history. Malaysia-Singapore has never moved past their idiotic use of the word “race” precisely because they never fully decolonized.
Also this suggests that there aren’t Singaporeans with Malaysian citizenship - which isn’t the case. As we both probably know, Singaporean citizens are given til 22 to renounce any foreign citizenship.
Also you seem to think that I believe that it’s culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn’t my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.
This is not what I’m saying, I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.
That contradiction you mentioned, then needs to be worked on now. Maybe there is no rush for those who are not part of the affected minority. I’m pretty sure that if you were, you’d be wanting to have this discussion moving as it is in Singapore.
If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?
You say that Malaysia and Singapore share similar cultures, and I agree.
You say that because of this similarity, Malaysia should share the same “progress” of Singapore.
I say that it can’t and it hasn’t because they are not the same. They have different material conditions.
But then you come back and say
I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.
I don’t know how to continue. It seems like we are talking past eachother.
If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?
The reaction against the unprovoked burning of the Quran is objectively correct because Islam is globally oppressed, through wars of destabilization and occupation in West Asia, through funding of Wahhabist and Salafist groups, through neocolonial control of the Persian Gulf states, through Orientalism and Racism. So when these oppressed countries reject this imposition of Western cultural values - it is only reactionary if you are on the side of the Imperialists.
The “conversation” that happens is just further policing of LGBT communities here in Malaysia - what “progress” is that?
When the government introduces guidelines for performers, which include not talking about sensitive topics as well as behaving appropriately, and it was violated by foreigners, shouldn’t the government act? What would it look like if they don’t act?
It would delegitimize their rule causing further destabilization, and wreck our economy. What use would that brief conversation on LGBT rights be for people in my country, geopolitically and materially? We don’t need the colonizers and the imperialists themselves protesting on “our behalf” because it causes more problems than solutions.
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
Also, Singapore’s “progress” is encumbered with problems too. Pink Dot SG, the foremost NGO advocating for LGBT rights in Singapore, had large Amerikan corporate sponsors like Facebook, Google and Apple until the government stopped it. We must question why these NGOs can easily associate themselves with Western Capital without an ounce of reflection. There are no easy answers.
You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.
Your stance is different than mine. I see that in both scenarios, there is work to be done to improve the current situation for both and that expressing your concerns should be acceptable. But what you are stating would seem to indicate that this is only acceptable when the Quran is affected but not the LGBT community. If Quran, speak up, is LGBT, shut up and don’t interfere.
You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.
No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.
The nature of the countries in question also affect the situation at hand.
It is you who thinks that being Queer and being Muslim is like collecting trading cards or are just mere identities rather than historically situated phenomena. This is why I treat them differently - because they are.
How is Turkish citizens expressing discontent on another country’s policy in Turkey remotely the same as a British performer entering Malaysia for a concert then VIOLATING the social norms and practices?
It is insane that you are making a false equivalence between these two things.
Over here:
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
I explicitly mention that not all issues are to be resolved internally - there are valid avenues for internationalism.
But it seems like there is no point in continuing this conversation because I realise now we operate in totally different frameworks.
