Singapore will decriminalize sex between men, prime minister says
reuters.com
reuters.com
So you oppose heterosexual marriage as well? As it is also a particular lifestyle.
Also, note that it has two kinds of marriages already, with different rules -- civil marriage, and Muslim marriage.
If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text.
You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though.
Are gay people not part of "the population" ? I'd expect the population to be the set of all people in the country, not some subset that you happen to like
I'm making a distinction between the state and the government. The state also includes people who write and interpret the constitution.
> You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though.
I'm not sure why would you think I'd be against that.
> not some subset that you happen to like
It's not just some subset, it's the overwhelming majority.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
First of all, it would be nice of you to at least looked at the responses to this comment, and reminded users that many of those are explicitly against HN guidelines (which is objectively true, with comments like just "What on earth?" [1], and my comment is essentially stating an opinion clearly acceptable in e.g. Singapore, and I know one of your goals on HN is to not be completely US-centric). Browbeating is clearly not what HN is for, and IMO allowing it would cause a lot more damage than allowing accounts primarily used for politics. Curious political discussion has some real content, browbeating doesn't.
Secondly, the effect of that policy is to essentially ban accountants with unpopular political opinions on one side of the spectrum (because people don't want to associate it with their normal work, for obvious reasons). One evidence for this is that you've probably banned more accounts on one side of political spectrum with that rationale. That should be easy to check, since the politics of accounts which use HN primarily for politics should be quite clear from their commenting history. I'm not accusing you of personal conscious bias against right-wingers in moderation here, I'm just pointing out that policy would result in more of them getting banned, since more of them have no choice but to try to conceal their identity (due to "consequences" at work, etc.). Remember what happened to Brendan Eich?
Thirdly, I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "ideological battle". I'm merely stating my political opinions, I have tried to never escalate into personal attacks, and I have tried to always add something concrete and interesting to the discussion, along the HN'a norm of intellectual curiosity. To me, ideological "battle" would imply the kind of dogmatic political rallying I got in response to my comment.
Finally, it seems that you are banning my account on a first strike. I don't remember having any previous negative interaction with the mods.
P.S. After posting this, I also noticed that you have "shadow banned" me, in the sense that my comment looks completely normal to myself when logged in, but I can't find a trace of it when logged out. That's an unethical practice in my books, and something that you have explicitly stated that you reserve for spammers and serial trolls [2].
I did look at the replies and it's true that some of them were terrible and against the site guidelines, but your account was by far the greatest problem, given that you initiated a flamewar and perpetuated it with 20+ comments. Pointing the finger at others, when you've broken the rules so badly yourself, is not a good look. One might mention individual responsibility as a value here.
I think you make an interesting point about ideological asymmetry. Maybe there is a systemic factor in that way—or maybe it's just that certain classes of account are more likely to fulminate and otherwise break the rules ("commit more crimes", as some might say in another context)—or maybe both? I don't know, and I don't see what difference it would make to moderation. Should the fire department hose two sides of a burning house equally, regardless of which way the wind is blowing, lest it give an appearance of bias? It's our job to prevent this place from burning itself down. For that we have certain rules and we apply them as evenhandedly as we know how. That involves pointing the hose where the fire is.
If you or anyone thinks the rules aren't optimal, I'd be happy to hear suggestions for better rules—as long as everyone understands that "better" has a clear definition in HN's context, because we're optimizing for one specific thing (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
Making something not a crime is the first step towards full legalization.
Then again, times may be a a-changing.
I lived in Singapore for 3 months, and as a gay man never felt unwelcome or unsafe. I benefit from other privileges that probably affected my experience, but Singapore is a pretty harmonious place.
Times are changing.
It's carefully coordinated and done in a way that most conservatives can't really attack. In line with .sg's usual approach to doing things carefully and slowly in a controlled manner.
Singapore is no stranger to selective enforcement and using the legal system against critics (often via things like defamation lawsuits). This particular law was never weaponized in that way, but there was never anything stopping them from doing so.
They didnt go to pink dot because they were afraid of appearing in any photos.
So you can have on the surface level, diversity but offer no safeguards or protection against assault or even murder in the case of transwoman in the West.
Thailand? No open LGBTQ legislation or politics like you have in the West but it remains the most trans friendly country in the world.
Singapore is a nice and safe countries but there are definitely trade offs.
Japan also had a long history of same sex culture, as did Korea and many other countries.
Then those cultures that imposed this discrimination turn around to poke fun at Islam for burqini or burka when as a secular outsider, its no different than Judeo/Christian/Abrahamic religious attitude and persecution of same sex relationship.
For example, sure it's marketing copy, but I don't think a company that wanted to make laws against being gay would bother with this: https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-commitments/diversity-and-i...
"As a firm focused on sustainable and inclusive growth, we are channeling the power of capital to drive economic prosperity for more people." https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-commitments/diversity-and-i...
Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy? For all the cheerleading we do about democracy, we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries, thus diluting the value of a citizen's vote. No one is concerned that there is no wall of separation between business and politics.
Singapore isn't really that democratic though. Somehow it kind of works for them.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.
As a tangent, the USA is a Democratic Republic, and yet all I ever hear is threats to "Our Democracy" I never hear about threats to "Our Republic"
"Rule of the People" and "Concern of the People" sound SIMILAR, sure!
Just because a mechanic is concerned for your car, does not mean he owns it... I think it's lazy of you to call this dichotomy "propoganda" without offering any definitions or etymology.
One is Roman. One is Greek. They describe the same concept, but it’s a concept that has been implemented differently both in their time and in ours: self-government. The forms and institutions are distinguishable as “Roman-style” or “Athenian-style”, but the same is true in 2022 of “American-style” and “French-style” republics.
The UK is non-republican because it's governed by Her Majesty's Government, but democratic because the actual power to choose the government belongs to the common people.
The US is republican because the government is constituted by We The People. If it became non-democratic, it would likely remain republican because changing a government's theory of legitimacy is harder than changing how the government actually works.
You stop having a republic when rulers start picking their replacements. You'd lose the republicanism if say, Joe Biden appointed Hunter Biden to be the next president or if it became tradition that the next Trump always gets voted in as president.
Things like democracy and the electoral college tend to protect republicanism, but both can exist without maintaining the republic
This itself is viewed as a threat to our democracy by those who either think it should not be a republic or are ignorant of the fact it was intended to be. For reference, see debates about a non proportional senate and the power of minority population electoral power.
Nobody sane has ever cared about "states' rights" consistently - it's a silly concerpt. It was invented as part of the Lost Cause mythology to justify secession. (Fugitive slave laws, which are pretty antithetical to 'states rights," were very much something the antebellum South pushed for.)
Sure, ANY Republic does not rely on States, as evidenced by Singapore. But OURS (if you are also a USA citizen) does.
That said, the idea that "states rights" originated after the civil war is absurd on face vale. Powers and autonomy left to the states are evident in our founding documentation, and obviously present in the lead up to the civil war as well.
The idea that a centralized government leaves no powers to the state and local level is a silly concept and counterfactual. It is obvious in the interstate commerce clause and many other parts of the constitution.
I don't think organisations can avoid foreign influence these days, but it'll be absurd to think that only one side was affected by it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Singapore
[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/raising-funds-to-rais...
In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech).
American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China.
Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here.
Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights.
[0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.
Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved.
In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."
Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.
What I'm saying is that it is illegitimate for private companies to use their vast wealth to influence the affairs of a comparatively poorer country.
Western countries colonized entire continents with force and violence. Now we're doing it again, ideologically, with business and geopolitics.
Goldman Sachs manages $2.5 trillion dollars worth of assets.
People trying to demand that they be provided doctors who fit their political views would be the ones turning it into a chess piece IMO; you can't simultaneously demand that the public health system accommodate your non-public health related concerns while complaining that the public health system is now dealing with areas outside their purview.
What if that shoe was on the other foot?
If people would not trade with USA because of racism?
If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)
The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.
The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?
Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?
The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?
The USA is no shining light on the hill spreading goodness with soft power. It is a huge imperialistic monster spreading its tentacles and world view with a huge military. Soft power (Goldman Sachs included) is under that military umbrella.
The US no longer has institutionalized racism and is illegal. Most of the racism of today is of a different nature, primarily among particular groups of individuals.
> If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)
There is no longer an attempted genocide of Native Americans occurring. But if you want to talk about Native land rights, reservations, etc. then that is something worth talking about.
> The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.
> The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?
Don't know what you're getting at with this. Are you implying the US is the only country that has homelessness? Homelessness is a problem in just about everywhere. You're going to have to elaborate on the 'leaving them to die in agony'.
> Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?
You're going to have to elaborate and give some examples. This seems like a pretty subjective topic.
> The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?
Again, elaborate. The US accepts a huge number asylum seekers and refugees. More than most countries.
Are you trying to make a consistent argument that no one should use trade to pressure other countries to change policies they disagree with?
So you're okay with buying goods made by Israeli companies in the West Bank, right? And buying Russian oil? How about sneakers made by Uighur slaves in Chinese concentration camps? How about buying blood diamonds? Should companies not pressure countries they do business with to prevent child labor, or enforce minimal worker safety regulations?
If people didn't trade with us because our policies were abhorrent to them, then maybe our policies are abhorrent and that would put pressure on us to stop those policies, which would be good. For example, if Europe passed a law banning the import of goods made in US for-profit prisons, that would be good.
This tired argument that "US is evil, everything it does must be bad" is absurd if you have any knowledge of what goes on in the rest of the world. The US can be flawed without making it as flawed as a country that hangs homosexuals from cranes (Iran), or as flawed as one that prohibits all forms of speech against the government (China, Vietnam, Russia, and on, and on).
So if you don't think it's a problem to trade with anyone, you aren't really standing up for the moral position you claim to hold against the US.
I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.
This in the context of:
> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence
To Singapore. There are values from Singapore that the USA could do with, so the fact that Goldman Sachs gets to tell Singapore what laws to make - what if that shoe was on the other foot? What of "your values" need up dating - but wait. Never mind soft power. The USA has the Pacific Fleet (and another half dozen fleets) so fuck you and you values.
I agree, but it's not tangential at all. In fact, it is the whole point. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
There are plenty of things which are not perfect, but are preferable to the other options. You might consider what position Singapore or the Philippines would be in without the US Navy sailing regularly through the South China Sea. Most likely they would be territories or dependencies of China. If Chinese Communist Party values are something you prefer to American values, then feel free to enumerate which, exactly, make it a system you would prefer to live under. (And note that this is a freedom you wouldn't have if you were posting on a Chinese message board).
Other countries can, and do, influence US policy as well as culture, in positive ways. This is also for the good. It is precisely why there is a powerful Pacific Fleet composed of people from over 100 nationalities under the US flag. When and if the Han empire begins to utilize the full capabilities of all its citizens by granting them freedom of thought, speech and movement, perhaps it will outcompete the US - other ethno-nationalist states with wise leaders have done so in the past. Even Singapore has done a fairly remarkable job of balancing speech and numerous ethnicities. Certainly better than the larger, equally strategic and yet doomed UAE.
But which values exactly do you wish to see imposed on the US which actually are practiced somewhere, and where are they practiced? That's a more interesting and fertile ground for discussion than simply "you're the bad guys"... and again, the bad guys in world history don't normally ask or care, whereas this is an intense and open topic of public debate in the US.
So many people confuse the freedom to do something with the freedom to do something and force the rest of the world to act as if you didn't do it.
In the 2020 general elections, the incumbent PAP had its worst showing ever, with ~60% of the votes. There are 5+ other opposition parties that Singaporeans can and do vote for in free and fair elections.
In the PRC, there are no meaningful elections whatsoever.
There is a trade off in every situation, and I believe that for most Singaporeans they are more focused on getting a HDB and $300K car and living in safe, prosperous environment, thus they allow for this type of interference. Right or wrong, it does work to provide the needs to the people.
s/any/most/
Conflating sex and physical attraction with love is a very modern phenomenon, and I think may have something to do with the instability of relationships.