-8

This question was improperly deleted. It is neither rude nor is it spam. It even has a reference.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/37599/2430

When I try to undelete it, it says

A moderator has deleted this post and it cannot be undeleted

The only phrase that I can think of that may be considered rude is from the source reference. If so, the proper action to take is to edit and change to a block quote. Otherwise, it should be undeleted.

  • 1
    Can you find the quote in Lenin's works that's attributed to him? This made up quote is also in direct contradiction of what you call a reference. The presented text in A doesn't look to me like an accurate paraphrase and isn't a quote either. It's plainly illogical to claim that VIL set out to destroy the Soviet state, which is what you get when you combine that quote with the content of what is camouflaged as paraphrase. – LаngLаngС Nov 7 at 21:25
  • 2
    @LаngLаngС "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln, 1761 – yannis Nov 7 at 21:56
7

That answer was flagged as rude/abusive by a user and I agreed, so I deleted it.

I agreed that it was rude/abusive because it reads like a conspiratorial rant which paints a vaguely-defined group of people as some sort of cartoonish villainous force.

That answer was flagged for undeletion twice, and 2 different moderators declined those flags.

I do not foresee that answer becoming undeleted.

  • 1
    It's not what I'd call 'rude'. But it is full of conspiracy theory of the easily refuted kind. Made up quotes, unfounded assertions, in short: baloney. – LаngLаngС Nov 7 at 21:08
  • Just noticed that this made up Lenin quote was posted twice by the same user. As far as I see there seem no standings posts with that 'quote'. Can you search in deleted posts for more occurrences (regardless of user) for this 'quote'? – LаngLаngС Nov 7 at 21:53
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС It looks like moderators can do that: meta.stackexchange.com/a/134047/388335 – divibisan Nov 7 at 22:28
  • 1
    That is too subjective. You should use a more objective measure of 'rude', or it should not even be an option. – Chloe Nov 8 at 1:53
2

I think this was part of a series of fake news tweets which have since been deleted from Twitter. Google still has them in their cache, the tweets can be found here.

A quick screenshot of what the tweets looked like, should it eventually be removed from cache (hover over to see the screenshot):

enter image description here

  • 1
    First I thought this would be irrelevant, being old, but apparent, self-plagiarism from off-site. But then I saw you opened a rabbit hole and looked inside. – LаngLаngС Nov 8 at 0:52
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС huh, it appears it's actually the same person (going by usernames). I actually thought this was one of those IRA Twitter bots discussed in the Mueller report but I think this is probably just a real person expressing their opinion. Either way, it doesn't belong here. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Nov 8 at 0:58
  • 1
    I didn't expect the guy who had posted that answer to have a different political inclination than you have found. But I think that's not the real problem. People can have political views but still not misrepresent sources here. – Fizz Nov 8 at 1:00
1

It's possible that that article "The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114" actually exists. But so what?

It's 2nd-hand smoke and belied by subsequent events. For example, the answer claimed that the 1926 article said, among other things that the Soviet plan was to

  • Incite homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual immorality and perversion

But in retrospect we know that the Soviet Union and even Russia today actually took/take a hard line against homosexuality. So the whole article [assuming it exists and says that] seems little more than embellished red scare with little factual basis. The deleted answer tried to present its summary of the article as factually correct regarding Russia, Marxism and what not.

And as LangLangC says, the article in question doesn't even seem to mention homosexuality.

And based on that flimsy reading of the source, the poster (Aporter) concluded that

This is ALL about indoctrinating boys & girls with the notion that there's no difference between men and women.

Clearly the poster is entitled to his political views (on Marxism and what not), but the answer was seriously flawed as far as sourcing went. Given JJ's answer on this page, Aporter's answer does fit the profile of (more extreme) right-wingers in the US which hardly make any distinctions between liberals and any kind of marxists. This is actually not terribly new in US politics

During the height of the McCarthy era (in the late 1940s and early 1950s), American senator Joseph McCarthy associated homosexuality and communism as "threats to the "American way of life." In both cases, association with sickness and disease provided means of legitimating isolation from impressionable young people."[24] Homosexuality was directly linked to security concerns, and more government employees were dismissed because of their sexual orientation than because they were left-winged or communist politically. George Chauncey noted that, "The specter of the invisible homosexual, like that of the invisible communist, haunted Cold War America," and homosexuality (and homosexuals) were constantly referred to not only as a disease, but also as an invasion, like the perceived danger of communism.[25]

McCarthy often used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-communist crusade, often combining the Second Red Scare with the lavender scare. On one occasion, he went so far as to announce to reporters, "If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you've got to be either a Communist or a cocksucker."[26] Some historians have argued that, in linking communism and homosexuality and psychological imbalance, McCarthy was employing guilt-by-association if evidence for communist activity was lacking.[27]

But by then, the Soviets were not actually that liberal:

Relative Soviet tolerance for homosexuality and homosexual rights ended in the late 1920s — as Soviet society came increasingly under Stalinist control. In the 1930s, along with increased repression of political dissidents and non-Russian nationalities under Stalin, LGBT themes faced official government censorship, and a uniformly harsher policy across the entire Soviet Union. Homosexuality was officially labelled a disease.[72] [...]

In 1934 the Soviet government recriminalised homosexuality in the Soviet Union. On March 7, 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, throughout the entire Soviet Union, expressly prohibited only male same-sex sexual intercourse, with up to five years of hard labor in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding lesbianism. During the Soviet period, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121.[73]

Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism [...]

That we delete McCarthyist answers nowadays here... is perhaps a good thing, although frankly heavily downvoting them might be enough when they don't misrepresent sources but just honestly express the poster's opinion. (I mean that if Aporter had honestly cited, or better, actually quoted McCarthy or any of the right-wing authors that might still share that view today, it would have been an honest answer, despite still being heavily biased by omission of other relevant facts.)

(As a side note: this meta-post is the first time that I saw that answer of Aporter. I had not flagged it, or even downvoted it.)

  • I'd say is even more complicated: that article is 'red scare' propaganda, but the 'paraphrase' of it wasn't satisfied with even that: so it made stuff up not found in this unreliable article? Further: did the Soviet Union "abolish marriage"? They had 70 years to try. Did they try or succeed? That'd be news! – LаngLаngС Nov 8 at 0:11
  • @LаngLаngС: I don't know, because I can't find the article on-line. It might be on archive.org but I haven't checked and it seems pointless to do so. – Fizz Nov 8 at 0:14
  • 1
    The one I linked above? Thing is: even its title is far off any rails! – LаngLаngС Nov 8 at 0:15
  • Was about to post an answer, you beat me. If you want, integrate all my comments into your A, but also follow up on @Yannis hint, regarding the fake quote. My only gripe is that "rude" is weird reason. I'd say "NAA", as it's really just a retelling of 1 specially updated CM-version, with very 'dubious' methods, essentially unsourced or lying, disconnected from real history. So not worthy of undeletion anyway. Then I don't want to ressurrect the deleted A here with quoting it. – LаngLаngС Nov 8 at 0:30
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС: I don't mind at all if you post your own answer with more details. I'm not really interested in analysing that answer any further. – Fizz Nov 8 at 0:31
  • You may be misunderstanding as that would lead even more credence to the article. If the Soviet Union disliked homosexuality, then it would stand to reason they would plan to 'inflict' that upon their enemies, i.e. the United States. So that doesn't actually reduce the believability. The article would have been describing ways that USSR undermines democracies and capitalist countries. It would be a good clarification question that you could ask the person who answered, but alas, that option is not even available. Amazing that knowledge disappears due to poor reading comprehension. :( – Chloe Nov 8 at 1:59
  • 2
    @Chloe: The Atlantic article is actually about just what was going on in the USSR debates on some law proposals regarding marriage. The rest is yours and Aporter's wild speculation. It's fine to sometimes have speculation in your answer(s), but not fine to claim it's actually based on a source that doesn't even mention the topic. – Fizz Nov 8 at 2:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .