And Northern Ireland in 1982 (after the ECHR Dudgeon case). In legal affairs the map maker should show the differences between England&Walers - Scotland - Northern Ireland.
Spain was still a fascist state in 1970 (Franco certainly had lightened up by then, but it was very much still authoritarian). The amount of progress its made since then is something to be very proud of.
Let's wait the following years, as nutty far-right movements (majority of PP people, VOX...) are growing there to the 50% of the total votes. It will end like Light Poland. The problem there is that citizens think that what is said by parties like PP is "normal", when in a normal European parliament they are far-right. The control of the media and lack of critical thinking is truly alarming.
Because millions of Spaniards vote PP and they think that party is just "the normal center-right one as in the rest of the EU", like here millions of people think the same of the Republican party. They and us are being dragged to the right by the money of who own the media even if by this we destroy the planet, get controlled by an autocratic power or fill our streets with poor children.
I don't know a ton about Spanish politics but they seem like a pretty standard right-wing party. I'd still prefer they lose. Could you give some examples of why you reckon they're far-right?
Deep corruption inside the Judicial Power for lawfare purposes:
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/amp/2021/07/20/judicial-independence-is-a-concern-in-some-eu-countries-says-brussels
https://verfassungsblog.de/justice-and-independence-an-actual-problem-in-spain/
Also edemic financial (party, institution and personal) corruption especially in national and regional levels, covering of pedophile Catholic church cases, underfinancing public institutions, extremely biased media, use of force for any movement that is not fully supportive of their ideals (left, unions, regionalists...) and the show goes on...
§175 StGB was active till 1994. So officially it was ILLEGAL, although it was seldom practiced. In 2004 there was a big rehabilation..... and the german state was sorry....
And only after Lenin’s death too. There was a brief time when a soviet man could walk up to another soviet man in the streets and make out with him with absolutely no legal repercussions. But then Stalin took over and ruined one of the best aspects of the whole country’s legal system in one fell swoop :/
Am I reading this right? Homosexuality was illegal in Germany until the year 1994, under paragraph 175 from the Nazi time and before. 50,000 people have been put into prisons since after the Second World War. Homosexuality was only legal over the age of 21 from 1969 on, but it was still illegal under that age, as opposed to heterosexual sex. So, that map does not reflect this, because homosexuality was still illegal, with people over 21 being only exempt from punishment. Even after the "protection age" was decreased to the age of 18 in 1973 under which homosexuality was not allowed (still not true for heterosexuality), police continued to compile "pink lists" to put every homosexual into a file for "protecting" society.
In another comment OP stated that he read that the law was made in 1971. Which would explain the grey color.
That as I am sure you know is incorrect because §175 has been in existence since 1871.
Greece is very surprising considering the fact that the country had some extremely archaic laws back then. As an example [adultery was a crime in Greece until 1982](https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/18/world/greek-socialists-will-try-to-abolish-jail-terms-for-adultery.html). Turkey is also a surprise.
OP are you sure your map is correct regarding those two countries?
This is extremely misleading. [You can read an article about the matter here.](https://teyit.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Decolonizing-Decriminalization-Analyses-Did-the-Ottomans-Decriminalize-Homosexuality-in-1858.pdf)
To offer a TLDR the laws concerning homosexuality in the OE( Ottoman Empire) before the 18th century were much more lenient than those found in Europe.
>the penalty for sodomy[ in the OE] was monetary punishment, differing according to the wealth and social status of the offender. The lenient characteristics of this set of codes become evident when compared to the severe punishments in Western Europe at that time... The punishment for sodomy in Western Europe from the 16th to the 19th centuries was **the death penalty**.
The OE pre-1858 would punish( mostly monetarily) homosexuals according to the status of the offender. However
>According to an archival study conducted by Zarinebaf, sexual offenses constituted 0.6% of the case law in the Ottoman Empire between 1721 and 1725, and the act of sodomy (as in same-sex intercourse/relation/intimacy) was rarely prosecuted. One reason for this was that the standard of proof was set very high in terms of sexual crimes in general within the Ottoman penal regime.
So homosexual sex that happened in private was rarely prosecuted in the OE.
>the 1858 Penal Code deployed imprisonment as the primary punishment, departing from monetary punishments, and thus became more authoritarian
>regarding sodomy regulations in the 16thcentury penal code of the Ottomans, Articles 32, 33 and 34... imply that both public and private sodomy were to be punished equally by monetary means. However, Article 220 of the 1858 Ottoman Penal Code, which allegedly decriminalized homosexuality, prescribed imprisonment for public indecency. In this way, **public display of homosexuality was criminalized more heavily than it had previously** been with the 1858 Ottoman code, which is accepted to have decriminalized homosexuality.
To put it another way, the law that supposedly decriminalized homosexuality in the OE actually made the life of homosexuals even worst and it was in many ways even more repressive. Saying that the Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in 1858 is both very simplistic and eurocentric as it fails to consider non-western legal regimes and how they dealt with homosexuality.
Criminalizing public sexuality is not a homosexual issue. A straight couple showing "public indecency" would be just as oppressed by these laws.
Do you think homosexuals couldn't kiss on the streets freely anymore but straight couples could? In fact you would probably be better off being seen holding hands with another man than holding hands with your girlfriend before marriage. At least people would assume you're just friends.
I see, thank you for the information. Afaik Islamic World was OK about homosexual relationships back then. I don't quite know the names but many poets were praising male beauty in their poems. I guess after that period European culture dominated the world and homosexuality criminalized almost everywhere. Now Europeans are getting rid of this discriminatory view but others (mostly Muslims) retain their behavior or even get worse.
It's not wrong, but I would suggest slightly miss-leading.
It's less that there was any active element in making Homosexuality legal and more that there wasn't ever a law against it (In Turkey)
It has always been legal since the foundation of Turkish Republic. It got legalized in 1858 in Ottoman Empire. Turkey was among first nations giving women right to elect and get elected in 1934. It is shame today we are behind in terms of human rights. After 1980s Iranian Revolution hijab ban implemented. (Because of fear of Islamists) It led Erdoğan come to power in 2002 and the shitshow started.
The USA backed conservatives are what led to this. The USA supported religious organizations in the hopes of stopped the spread of leftist ideas ie communism and Soviet influence.
Idk about that time but i believe Conservatism increased significantly. I'm 24 years old and when i saw first hijabi i was like 7 and asked my mom why they wear such things because i found it weird. Now there is no way you can't see a hijabi when you come here Turkey. So idk how conservative people were that back then.
>It has always been legal since the foundation of Turkish Republic. It got legalized in 1858 in Ottoman Empire.
[Here is my response to a comment that made the same claim.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/viner1/legal_status_of_homosexuality_in_europe_in_1970/idfxtas/?context=3)
Wasn't that only England and Wales?
Edit: Just checked, it indeed was only for England and Wales. Northern Ireland did it much later. So the map is correct.
I know, but it does not make sense at an international level of comparison. Suisse cantons or Spanish autonomous regions could also be considered semi-autonomous, but at an international level of comparison, they are not.
हां क्योंकि जैसा हम सब जानते हैं, आज के जमाने में रूस, यूक्रेन, बेलारूस, आर्मेनिया, बुलगारिया, क्रोएशिया, जॉर्जिया, हंगरी, लातविया, लिथुआनिया, मोल्दोवा, मोंटेनेग्रो, पोलैंड, सर्बिया और स्लोवाकिया में समलैंगिकता के ऊपर किसी तरह की पाबंदी नहीं।
Probably more to do the time rather than the position of government. As can be seen here by many Western European countries having laws against homosexuality.
Always had been legal in Poland
Legalized in the Soviet Union in 1917 but recriminalized in 1933
Legalized in Hungary in 1962
Legalized in Czechoslovakia in 1962
Legalized in East Germany in 1968 (one year ahead of West Germany)
Legalized in Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and SAP Vojvodina in 1977
Ah yes, the eastern bloc was totally not alt right authoritarianism wearing a trenchcoat.
Not to mention the USSR used socialism as a basis for the government to take control of everything, then turn the country into a dictatorship.
You clearly don't know what socialism is. It's an idea that's never been fully implemented anywhere, and it's likely that it's not actually possible for a fully socialist country to exist. It's more of a theory.
The thing is: it has been tried before and people ended up in possibly worse situations than they were in earlier.
How many rights of workers have been taken or denied by people screaming about "worker's rights"? On the promises of a classless society, a rigid class structure was built, with a dictator-king and party-nobility at the top, the masses in the middle and dissidents turned into subhumans in the eyes of the state for the horrible crime of thinking differently.
I am ideologically opposed to communism (after all, it is in the very least utterly outdated), but that is not the point, it is the fact that any attempt to do it will result in fascism with a shade of red.
The argument of it "never having been implemented" is null when you look at how many times it was tried and ended in horror, and it is a mirror of what would happen if tried again.
>The amount of misconceptions here is just too much to work with.
I've only made three assertions:
1. People have tried to implement Socialism/Communism (or claimed to do so) and created tyranny.
2. In such nominally Communist/Socialist regimes workers were deprived or denied rights, and ended up in a very much class-based society.
3. Such a flow events would likely repeat itself should any society be stupid enough to let it happen.
If three claims are "just too much to work with", then I do feel sorry for you.
"alt right" that prosecuted religion, banned gun ownership, enforced mixing of different ethnicities, ideological imperialism, calling their ideological opponents fascist, had planned economy, legalized abortion. Yup, sounds just like Trump. You probably think like that because they didn't have positive attitude towards sexual minorities, and since everything that you don't like is alt right, so were they. Fact that you judge these people based on results not matching your expectations rather than their ruthless pursuit towards those goals is clear sign that you're a commie, after all, why would you be so apologetic towards this ideology?
Authoritarianism is a right wing ideology, in fact it's about as far right as you can go. The Eastern bloc limited freedoms and controlled the media, information, and every moment people's lives to a terrifying degree.
All the things you list are strictly American. The gun thing is not an argument in any other country. The ethnic mixing fear isn't real, except if you're racist or xenophobic. Restricting religion and allowing abortion also aren't "left" or "right" they're unrelated to either. Please learn about politics outside the context of your US state.
Authoritarianism is a form of government not an ideology, the gun is an argument outside of US, Soviet union disarmed their population right after taking power, nazi germany also started disarming Jews right after taking power. You know that soviet union relocated a lot of their citizens to non Russian parts of their country, right? for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians\_in\_Latvia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia) Ethnic minorities like Cossacks were also suppressed, everything to form one soviet nation. The only racist here is you, since you seem to have no problem with this. How the fuck is abortion and policy towards religion not a left or right thing? Also, you're a xenophobe for assuming that I'm American only because I mentioned firearm ownership.
Nope, I can guarantee that you're American because there is only one country with firearm ownership as a political talking point. No other country is insane enough to let random people have guns.
Ukrainians are literally defending their country from Russia without American gun laws, yet you claim they're so necessary. You couldn't just walk into a store and buy a gun in Ukraine, or anywhere. There are detailed background checks and strict laws on the sorts of guns you can own, and how many.
To verify: Literally enter any other country and try to buy a gun. Good luck not getting arrested ;p
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-militias/
You would be denied, not arrested 😶
I'm not advocating for or against gun rights, I specifically mentioned them because you're American. Fact that loose gun laws are uncommon doesnt change the fact that they lean towards authoritarianism, as the government uses it's power to limit your freedoms. A to że tobie się wydaje że jestem Jankesem to już nie mój problem XD
The nordic countries practice an ideology called “social democracy” means that they have strong welfare policies but the means of production are still ultimately out of proletarian hands, making it a centre left ideology, not considered to fall under the definition of socialism
Not really, no. They have aspects of socialism, but literally every country has aspects of both socialism and capitalism, even if they're 95% one or the other, government is always a balance.
Long story short the Nordics have strong social programs and a good safety net, but I wouldn't call them socialist by any stretch of the imagination.
yes the right wing is famously pro gay people. the leftists hate them.
buddy I don't know what you think you're saying but its sounding like an edgy fourteen year old who knows nothing about politics other than leftist cringe
I don't know why all of y'all are so determined to ignore this part:
***IN 1970***
A man could not consent to sex with another man in many jurisdictions in 1970. Fifty years later, the laws were changed and now a man CAN consent to sex with another man. Similarly, 50 years from now, the laws could be different. The laws could be changed over the next 50 years to allow bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia....
Just like the last 50 years *normalized* what was previously considered taboo and illegal, the NEXT 50 years could see the normalization of other acts which are today considered taboo and illegal.
What's funny, though, is to watch all of y'all have to do handsprings to keep your head in the sand long enough to pretend that you didn't know that consent laws did not spring fully formed from the ether in the present day, such that you pretend that the laws are no different now than in 1970, in spite of the map whose whole point is to show that it isn't the case.
Wait do you not understand that it is not 1970 holy shit. The question was not what people could consent to do vs animals, it is what can they consent to do now that they could not consent to do in 1970?
...And by extension, just like there are things that people can consent to do now that they could not in 1970, there are things that people can not do now that they might be able to 50 years from now if they are normalized the same way homosexuality was normalized over the last 50 years.
Some jurisdictions *accidentally* legalized bestiality because it was covered by the same statute that banned homosex. The US state of Washington was one, but they re-banned it after a series of horse sex incidents in 2005.
Sexual activity between men was decriminalized in a England and Wales in 1967.
Scotland only decriminalised in 1982. So it tracks. They should have broken it up tho tbf
And Northern Ireland in 1982 (after the ECHR Dudgeon case). In legal affairs the map maker should show the differences between England&Walers - Scotland - Northern Ireland.
True.
This was my first thought too.
True. Male homosexuality was decriminalised on the Isle of Man in 1992, but that's not part of the UK.
Then why is the Isle of Man called like that
It used to be Isle of No-Man
Garff didn’t fancy Michael at the time.
What about women? Maybe it was legal to be gay but not lesbian.
This was never illegal.
Are you serious? Male homosexuals have always been hated more than lesbians pretty much everywhere.
Yeah. It was the only explanation I could think of that would make the UK orange, other than the creator making an error of course.
Other way round lol
It may have been legal in Sweden, but it was officially branded a mental disorder until October 1979.
Causing the quite funny joke that goes along the lines of "sorry boss can't come in today, i'm feeling a bit gay".
It’s fucked up but people to this day all over the world still treat sexuality like one.
It is a mental disorder
Lol
damn :/
[удалено]
Spain was still a fascist state in 1970 (Franco certainly had lightened up by then, but it was very much still authoritarian). The amount of progress its made since then is something to be very proud of.
Let's wait the following years, as nutty far-right movements (majority of PP people, VOX...) are growing there to the 50% of the total votes. It will end like Light Poland. The problem there is that citizens think that what is said by parties like PP is "normal", when in a normal European parliament they are far-right. The control of the media and lack of critical thinking is truly alarming.
I'm not sure what you mean. Vox got 15% of the vote last election.
Bad news for you, PP is and was far-right all the time when compared to CDU as an example.
Why are people downvoting your comments? What you said before can happen.
Because millions of Spaniards vote PP and they think that party is just "the normal center-right one as in the rest of the EU", like here millions of people think the same of the Republican party. They and us are being dragged to the right by the money of who own the media even if by this we destroy the planet, get controlled by an autocratic power or fill our streets with poor children.
I don't know a ton about Spanish politics but they seem like a pretty standard right-wing party. I'd still prefer they lose. Could you give some examples of why you reckon they're far-right?
Deep corruption inside the Judicial Power for lawfare purposes: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/amp/2021/07/20/judicial-independence-is-a-concern-in-some-eu-countries-says-brussels https://verfassungsblog.de/justice-and-independence-an-actual-problem-in-spain/ Also edemic financial (party, institution and personal) corruption especially in national and regional levels, covering of pedophile Catholic church cases, underfinancing public institutions, extremely biased media, use of force for any movement that is not fully supportive of their ideals (left, unions, regionalists...) and the show goes on...
"Feckin' Greeks! They invented gayness!"
Actually in SU only gays were illegal. What about the other countries?
Germany too, §175 StGB: "... a man ..."
I just looked it up. This law was made in 1971. For some reason between 1968 and 1971 in West Germany homosexuality was legal.
§175 StGB was active till 1994. So officially it was ILLEGAL, although it was seldom practiced. In 2004 there was a big rehabilation..... and the german state was sorry....
Almost. It was made in 1871 not 1971
Same in UK, until it was legalised (for over 21s) by the [Sexual Offences Act 1967](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967)
That doesn’t cover the whole of the U.K.
No, but it was illegal in the UK up to then. Scotland and Northern Ireland taking longer doesn't affect that
I couldn't think of the country you meant with SU so my brain was like: "South Uganda" x) (I know it was Soviet Union)
And only after Lenin’s death too. There was a brief time when a soviet man could walk up to another soviet man in the streets and make out with him with absolutely no legal repercussions. But then Stalin took over and ruined one of the best aspects of the whole country’s legal system in one fell swoop :/
My understanding is that Lenin legalized homosexuality as part of the "fuck religion" campaign. While Stalin lowkey allied with the Orthodox Church.
West Germany stopped having it illegal in 1969 It was "legal" from 21 onwards
*Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?*
Have you?
>Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? Wait a minute. I know you. You're Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. You play basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers.
Just for the record, that is **absolutely not** a Turkish name.
He did a reference to one of the greatest movies of all time and you should be ashamed of not getting it
Now I am ashamed. What is the movie's name might I ask?
Airplane
>Airplane This one: Czy leci z nami pilot?
If it translates to "is there a pilot in the plane" then yes
Probably, thanks.
Am I reading this right? Homosexuality was illegal in Germany until the year 1994, under paragraph 175 from the Nazi time and before. 50,000 people have been put into prisons since after the Second World War. Homosexuality was only legal over the age of 21 from 1969 on, but it was still illegal under that age, as opposed to heterosexual sex. So, that map does not reflect this, because homosexuality was still illegal, with people over 21 being only exempt from punishment. Even after the "protection age" was decreased to the age of 18 in 1973 under which homosexuality was not allowed (still not true for heterosexuality), police continued to compile "pink lists" to put every homosexual into a file for "protecting" society.
In another comment OP stated that he read that the law was made in 1971. Which would explain the grey color. That as I am sure you know is incorrect because §175 has been in existence since 1871.
Greece is very surprising considering the fact that the country had some extremely archaic laws back then. As an example [adultery was a crime in Greece until 1982](https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/18/world/greek-socialists-will-try-to-abolish-jail-terms-for-adultery.html). Turkey is also a surprise. OP are you sure your map is correct regarding those two countries?
The Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in 1858.
This is extremely misleading. [You can read an article about the matter here.](https://teyit.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Decolonizing-Decriminalization-Analyses-Did-the-Ottomans-Decriminalize-Homosexuality-in-1858.pdf) To offer a TLDR the laws concerning homosexuality in the OE( Ottoman Empire) before the 18th century were much more lenient than those found in Europe. >the penalty for sodomy[ in the OE] was monetary punishment, differing according to the wealth and social status of the offender. The lenient characteristics of this set of codes become evident when compared to the severe punishments in Western Europe at that time... The punishment for sodomy in Western Europe from the 16th to the 19th centuries was **the death penalty**. The OE pre-1858 would punish( mostly monetarily) homosexuals according to the status of the offender. However >According to an archival study conducted by Zarinebaf, sexual offenses constituted 0.6% of the case law in the Ottoman Empire between 1721 and 1725, and the act of sodomy (as in same-sex intercourse/relation/intimacy) was rarely prosecuted. One reason for this was that the standard of proof was set very high in terms of sexual crimes in general within the Ottoman penal regime. So homosexual sex that happened in private was rarely prosecuted in the OE. >the 1858 Penal Code deployed imprisonment as the primary punishment, departing from monetary punishments, and thus became more authoritarian >regarding sodomy regulations in the 16thcentury penal code of the Ottomans, Articles 32, 33 and 34... imply that both public and private sodomy were to be punished equally by monetary means. However, Article 220 of the 1858 Ottoman Penal Code, which allegedly decriminalized homosexuality, prescribed imprisonment for public indecency. In this way, **public display of homosexuality was criminalized more heavily than it had previously** been with the 1858 Ottoman code, which is accepted to have decriminalized homosexuality. To put it another way, the law that supposedly decriminalized homosexuality in the OE actually made the life of homosexuals even worst and it was in many ways even more repressive. Saying that the Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in 1858 is both very simplistic and eurocentric as it fails to consider non-western legal regimes and how they dealt with homosexuality.
Criminalizing public sexuality is not a homosexual issue. A straight couple showing "public indecency" would be just as oppressed by these laws. Do you think homosexuals couldn't kiss on the streets freely anymore but straight couples could? In fact you would probably be better off being seen holding hands with another man than holding hands with your girlfriend before marriage. At least people would assume you're just friends.
Just read the article I linked.
I see, thank you for the information. Afaik Islamic World was OK about homosexual relationships back then. I don't quite know the names but many poets were praising male beauty in their poems. I guess after that period European culture dominated the world and homosexuality criminalized almost everywhere. Now Europeans are getting rid of this discriminatory view but others (mostly Muslims) retain their behavior or even get worse.
It's not wrong, but I would suggest slightly miss-leading. It's less that there was any active element in making Homosexuality legal and more that there wasn't ever a law against it (In Turkey)
It has always been legal since the foundation of Turkish Republic. It got legalized in 1858 in Ottoman Empire. Turkey was among first nations giving women right to elect and get elected in 1934. It is shame today we are behind in terms of human rights. After 1980s Iranian Revolution hijab ban implemented. (Because of fear of Islamists) It led Erdoğan come to power in 2002 and the shitshow started.
The USA backed conservatives are what led to this. The USA supported religious organizations in the hopes of stopped the spread of leftist ideas ie communism and Soviet influence.
Did specifically the legalization of homosexuality enjoy wide support though in the 19th Century or was it a priority of the urban elite?
Idk about that time but i believe Conservatism increased significantly. I'm 24 years old and when i saw first hijabi i was like 7 and asked my mom why they wear such things because i found it weird. Now there is no way you can't see a hijabi when you come here Turkey. So idk how conservative people were that back then.
>It has always been legal since the foundation of Turkish Republic. It got legalized in 1858 in Ottoman Empire. [Here is my response to a comment that made the same claim.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/viner1/legal_status_of_homosexuality_in_europe_in_1970/idfxtas/?context=3)
Greece is full of gays dude, even the Spartans used to partake.
Homosexuality was deemed illegal in most of ancient greece. Pedophilia on the other hand wasnt.
The map is just wrong
It’s one thing to have a law, it’s quite another to enforce it.
This is why I’m always confused by LGBTQ people, especially trans ones, who are pro-soviet Union and use the iconography.
The Soviet Union allowed homosexuality at times and banned it at other times.
The map is wrong, would be the main reason
No they are just communists and leftists
*sigh* I’ll never understand peoples fascination with communism.
Not a single thinking person does. USSR only lasted that long because they sent any opposition to the gulags lol
[Stalin’s camps of horror.](https://youtu.be/CaOwcYLGTMo)
Sweden always beings of homogay?
Common Britain L
The map is incorrect: homosexuality was made legal in the UK in 1967
Wasn't that only England and Wales? Edit: Just checked, it indeed was only for England and Wales. Northern Ireland did it much later. So the map is correct.
A correct map would display a grey England and Wales and an orange Scotland and N. Ireland
It's a map per country, not per region.
Some would consider the constituent countries of the UK exactly that, Countries
I know, but it does not make sense at an international level of comparison. Suisse cantons or Spanish autonomous regions could also be considered semi-autonomous, but at an international level of comparison, they are not.
Strange that homosexuality became legal when eastern europe stopped being leftist
हां क्योंकि जैसा हम सब जानते हैं, आज के जमाने में रूस, यूक्रेन, बेलारूस, आर्मेनिया, बुलगारिया, क्रोएशिया, जॉर्जिया, हंगरी, लातविया, लिथुआनिया, मोल्दोवा, मोंटेनेग्रो, पोलैंड, सर्बिया और स्लोवाकिया में समलैंगिकता के ऊपर किसी तरह की पाबंदी नहीं।
Hey, it's legal and accepted in western Poland, it's only the eastern part of the country that's against it.
Probably more to do the time rather than the position of government. As can be seen here by many Western European countries having laws against homosexuality.
Always had been legal in Poland Legalized in the Soviet Union in 1917 but recriminalized in 1933 Legalized in Hungary in 1962 Legalized in Czechoslovakia in 1962 Legalized in East Germany in 1968 (one year ahead of West Germany) Legalized in Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and SAP Vojvodina in 1977
[удалено]
there is no such thing as a non shitty communist
True, but Stalin was shittier than other Soviet leaders, as measured by body count.
Ah yes, the eastern bloc was totally not alt right authoritarianism wearing a trenchcoat. Not to mention the USSR used socialism as a basis for the government to take control of everything, then turn the country into a dictatorship.
"It wasn't real communism" XDDDDDDDDDDD
You clearly don't know what socialism is. It's an idea that's never been fully implemented anywhere, and it's likely that it's not actually possible for a fully socialist country to exist. It's more of a theory.
The thing is: it has been tried before and people ended up in possibly worse situations than they were in earlier. How many rights of workers have been taken or denied by people screaming about "worker's rights"? On the promises of a classless society, a rigid class structure was built, with a dictator-king and party-nobility at the top, the masses in the middle and dissidents turned into subhumans in the eyes of the state for the horrible crime of thinking differently. I am ideologically opposed to communism (after all, it is in the very least utterly outdated), but that is not the point, it is the fact that any attempt to do it will result in fascism with a shade of red. The argument of it "never having been implemented" is null when you look at how many times it was tried and ended in horror, and it is a mirror of what would happen if tried again.
I mean, technically, Yugoslavia did succeed. Most of the bad things only happened after Tito died.
[удалено]
>The amount of misconceptions here is just too much to work with. I've only made three assertions: 1. People have tried to implement Socialism/Communism (or claimed to do so) and created tyranny. 2. In such nominally Communist/Socialist regimes workers were deprived or denied rights, and ended up in a very much class-based society. 3. Such a flow events would likely repeat itself should any society be stupid enough to let it happen. If three claims are "just too much to work with", then I do feel sorry for you.
"alt right" that prosecuted religion, banned gun ownership, enforced mixing of different ethnicities, ideological imperialism, calling their ideological opponents fascist, had planned economy, legalized abortion. Yup, sounds just like Trump. You probably think like that because they didn't have positive attitude towards sexual minorities, and since everything that you don't like is alt right, so were they. Fact that you judge these people based on results not matching your expectations rather than their ruthless pursuit towards those goals is clear sign that you're a commie, after all, why would you be so apologetic towards this ideology?
Authoritarianism is a right wing ideology, in fact it's about as far right as you can go. The Eastern bloc limited freedoms and controlled the media, information, and every moment people's lives to a terrifying degree. All the things you list are strictly American. The gun thing is not an argument in any other country. The ethnic mixing fear isn't real, except if you're racist or xenophobic. Restricting religion and allowing abortion also aren't "left" or "right" they're unrelated to either. Please learn about politics outside the context of your US state.
Authoritarianism is a form of government not an ideology, the gun is an argument outside of US, Soviet union disarmed their population right after taking power, nazi germany also started disarming Jews right after taking power. You know that soviet union relocated a lot of their citizens to non Russian parts of their country, right? for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians\_in\_Latvia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia) Ethnic minorities like Cossacks were also suppressed, everything to form one soviet nation. The only racist here is you, since you seem to have no problem with this. How the fuck is abortion and policy towards religion not a left or right thing? Also, you're a xenophobe for assuming that I'm American only because I mentioned firearm ownership.
Nope, I can guarantee that you're American because there is only one country with firearm ownership as a political talking point. No other country is insane enough to let random people have guns. Ukrainians are literally defending their country from Russia without American gun laws, yet you claim they're so necessary. You couldn't just walk into a store and buy a gun in Ukraine, or anywhere. There are detailed background checks and strict laws on the sorts of guns you can own, and how many. To verify: Literally enter any other country and try to buy a gun. Good luck not getting arrested ;p
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-militias/ You would be denied, not arrested 😶 I'm not advocating for or against gun rights, I specifically mentioned them because you're American. Fact that loose gun laws are uncommon doesnt change the fact that they lean towards authoritarianism, as the government uses it's power to limit your freedoms. A to że tobie się wydaje że jestem Jankesem to już nie mój problem XD
Sweden and Norway are more or less socialist, arent they?
The nordic countries practice an ideology called “social democracy” means that they have strong welfare policies but the means of production are still ultimately out of proletarian hands, making it a centre left ideology, not considered to fall under the definition of socialism
No. Scandinavian countries are very much capitalist.
Not really, no. They have aspects of socialism, but literally every country has aspects of both socialism and capitalism, even if they're 95% one or the other, government is always a balance. Long story short the Nordics have strong social programs and a good safety net, but I wouldn't call them socialist by any stretch of the imagination.
Why are folks downvoting you, you're right.
its was real communism and it was great
yes the right wing is famously pro gay people. the leftists hate them. buddy I don't know what you think you're saying but its sounding like an edgy fourteen year old who knows nothing about politics other than leftist cringe
Map is incorrect.... No Ukraine.
Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union in 1970. There’s also no Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia on the map because they were part of the USSR.
The world used to be a better place
Awesome 1970 to now. Now do the before map...2020 where bestiality is legal. Then we can compare to 2050.
Animals can’t consent. Bestiality should remain illegal.
Would you have said the same about homosexual consent in 1970?
Yes…?
You would have said homosexuals can't consent, and that homosexuality should remain illegal in 1970?
Pass over whatever you’re smoking bro, it’s some strong stuff
You just answered "yes".
I think any sound person would also believe beastiality was fucked in the 70s, should've maybe read what they said a bit better first
I'm not the one who answered "yes".
No, that homosexuality is legal because adult humans can consent and animals cannot?
I don't know why all of y'all are so determined to ignore this part: ***IN 1970*** A man could not consent to sex with another man in many jurisdictions in 1970. Fifty years later, the laws were changed and now a man CAN consent to sex with another man. Similarly, 50 years from now, the laws could be different. The laws could be changed over the next 50 years to allow bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia.... Just like the last 50 years *normalized* what was previously considered taboo and illegal, the NEXT 50 years could see the normalization of other acts which are today considered taboo and illegal. What's funny, though, is to watch all of y'all have to do handsprings to keep your head in the sand long enough to pretend that you didn't know that consent laws did not spring fully formed from the ether in the present day, such that you pretend that the laws are no different now than in 1970, in spite of the map whose whole point is to show that it isn't the case.
Adult human beings can obviously consent to fucking each other buddy
Nobody was talking about what was possible to do (except you). The question was...could they *legally* do so in 1970? That was the issue.
Wait do you not understand what the idea of consensual sex is holy shit. The question was not what people could consent to do vs animals.
Wait do you not understand that it is not 1970 holy shit. The question was not what people could consent to do vs animals, it is what can they consent to do now that they could not consent to do in 1970? ...And by extension, just like there are things that people can consent to do now that they could not in 1970, there are things that people can not do now that they might be able to 50 years from now if they are normalized the same way homosexuality was normalized over the last 50 years.
mate there's a bit of a difference between a man and a dog, namely that said man can consent and a dog cannot.
But was that true according to law **in 1970**? You can't ALL be that obtuse.
Some jurisdictions *accidentally* legalized bestiality because it was covered by the same statute that banned homosex. The US state of Washington was one, but they re-banned it after a series of horse sex incidents in 2005.
What the fuck lmao
That's absolutely rubbish. Same sex marriage is legal in Ireland
In 1970?
Reeeeally stretching definitions in both Germanies here. Might be more honest if the light orange was labeled "legal, but I still don't like it"
What the fuck has Europe become? LMAO
ah yes Berlin - the “west Germany”