There have been and are real socialist states (not just nominally so) that were some of the most advanced countries in the world on queer issues, specifically East Germany before and Cuba now. I do kind of agree with you in a more general sense, because Hexbear as a whole doesn't know how to deal with the concept of social discipline.

AES (the state) doesn't seem to me to be socialist in any significant sense, though it is worth supporting in its struggle against the west on roughly the same basis as Iran. Parading Sankara's corpse isn't very compelling when he could barely be called a Marxist in his approach to begin with (as in his political practice, not his speeches), and they do not approach even him.

I think the anti-revisionists have a point that "Actually Existing Socialism" is a question-begging term, which makes sense when one remembers that it was popularized by the USSR after revisionists had seized power and was mostly used in the context of justifying what we now all recognize as revisionism in the USSR and elsewhere. Arguments about whether or not your approach is socialist are so much simpler when you start by assuming that you are.

The soy "A -> B, B -> C, therefore A -> C" vs the chad "C = C".

Not every AES state is social illiberal. Maybe laws are. But all the isms are very much prevalent in the west to an high degree as well. The "existence" of progressive neighbourhoods in Berlin, Cologne, London or San Fransisco does not erase this fact.

Mind that Burkina Faso nearly lost half the country to the Islamic state, these laws are there to keep Burkina Faso alive and appease/win back the muslim population.

It was Mao who once said that the party should never move too far ahead of the masses, to quote:

Communists must never separate themselves from the majority of the people or neglect them by leading only a few progressive contingents in an isolated and rash advance, but must take care to forge close links between the progressive elements and the broad masses. This is what thinking in terms of the majority means.

This is also why Stalin (unfortunately) recriminalized Homosexuality after Lenin legalized it; because he recognized that the masses of the USSR were still mostly socially reactionary and moving too far forward socially risked tearing apart the nascent Soviet state and turn said masses against the party. And he was right: see how many soldiers in the Ukrainian SSR alone willingly joined the Nazis the moment they had a chance.

This is not to say a socialist state shouldn't strive to push the masses towards social progress, women's rights were advanced far more quickly in the Socialist bloc than the Capitalist world last century for example. But such social progress must be organic and done within a framework that will be appropriate to the material conditions of the socialist society. If Burkina Faso had their stonewall moment today this law would probably never pass. But they didn't, because the masses aren't ready for it yet.

And people are projecting their queer politics to Sankara for that matter. Was Sankara even that good towards queer people?

Filipino Maoists.

Nepal is good on LGBTQ rights relatively, though the communist movement is kinda split, though their first gay politician did recently defect TO CPN (Unified Marxist Leninist)

could we get some examples of imperialist puppets which are okay with queer people, cant really think of any, ig the problem moreso is that many countries generally are not ok with queer people

It's also going to create a group of people much more easily recruited by the CIA and similar orgs, because they'll either resent the revolution for oppressing them, or be blackmailed into collaboration.

The GDR didn't deciminalize homosexuality out of a progressive concern for gay people's wellbeing (far from it), but because they were all getting turned into spies by the west.

True, but I think we forget just how homophobic some countries are - to the extent that homophobia and religious adherence is more of a unifier than a splitter, even for those who have queer family members.

Not that I think this is a positive move or that socialism is ideologically compatible with homophobia, but I don't think this is as bad of a move as you're thinking for national unity.

Realistically, we made major strides after breaking Jim Crow apartheid and the libs spent the whole time lording their social reforms over the global south while pillaging them and paving the way for a far right government to dismantle the same reforms.

A lot of international anti LGBT sentiment recently comes from a place of resentment against the west and was imposed by the west in the first place.

We only think we're progressive because we have the attention span of goldfish.

I have very limited knowledge but the explanation I got was the military is not secular enough and the average soldier is influenced by either old Catholic homophobia or newer Salafist homophobia, and the latter is used as a recruitment technique to pull soldiers to the Salafist militias who are the biggest threat to the current governments. The theory apparently is that making 'deviant' sexual behaviour illegal on paper means the propaganda cudgel is taken away from the militias but thje government never has to enforce it meaningfully when they decide to be allies- that last part seemed like cope on the person I was talking to's part

Probably just trying to win over the conservative catholic and sunni groups

Who are they trying to please with this ? ... I'm trying to understand what actual purpose this even has.

The Justice Minister, Edasso Rodrigue Bayala, defended the law as a measure to protect “cultural values,” warning that those who engage in what he described as “bizarre behaviour” would face legal consequences. To him, the law is less about criminal justice and more about safeguarding what he calls the moral fabric of society. For many within the ruling establishment, this step is about planting their flag firmly in the ground. An assertion of sovereignty in a global climate where local values and international rights discourse often collide.. The purpose is to crack down on unnatural behaviour that is incompatible with traditional society. There's also the sovereignity angle of resisting un-African liberal ideas.

What's the lawmaking process?

Parliament has passed it, now it needs the leader's signature: https://ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/africa/Burkina-Faso-s-parliament-votes-to-outlaw-homosexual-acts-1998964

I was under the impression the government currently mostly does whatever it wants so I'm trying to understand what actual purpose this even has

gonna go ahead and assume it's because they're homophobic and they like homophobic policy.

it is probably something that exists as the norm in the region - a search on wikipedia on neighbouring country ghana shows that lgbtq stuff has been outlawed since colonial times

their society is still an echo from previous iterations of society at the end of the day, and focusing intensely on the shortcomings on a country which is not aligned with western interests is a propaganda tactic - this rhetoric/sentiment is most likely common among the populace in neighbouring countries

The CIA used to finance pro-LGBT groups in Cuba and Venezuela. When Cuba granted LGBTQ+ minorities most of the rights and guarantees they wanted via a democratic referendum, those groups lost all the popularity and funding they had. Nowadays, all these groups complain about is that there is usually a lack of proper medicine to help trans people with their transition, but they don't mention that this is less the government's fault and more the result of the U.S. embargo against Cuba. The Castro family and most of the leaders of the Communist Party of Cuba supported LGBTQ+ rights.

Venezuela is a different case; it is a more socially conservative and religious society than Cuba. While Chávez wasn't homophobic, he basically ignored anything related to LGBTQ+ rights, which led the U.S. to do the same thing they did with Cuba. Maduro seems much more friendly toward LGBTQ+ groups, stating multiple times that he supports and respects them. It seems that Maduro has also cracked down on homophobic speech and views within the PSUV (Venezuela's ruling party) and the government, though the military and police still hold some reactionary views.

Maduro has previously stated that he would approve same-sex marriage. He has reformed laws recently to allow LGBTQ+ people to serve in the army and to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. He wanted the National Assembly to approve a new constitution that would have recognized same-sex marriage and gender identity, but then Juan Guaidó declared himself president and attempted a coup in 2019, and since then, those two reforms have been stuck in limbo.

The rationale I see floating around is that it's an attempt to mitigate recruitment efforts by ISIS separatists. In any case, it changes very little in day-to-day life since Burkina Faso is a homophobic society anyways. Burkina Faso when it was a French neocolony was about as homophobic as it is now.

I'm not even sure if Sankara himself was cool with queer people. People thinking he was are merely projecting what they want him to be or assuming that just because he combated widespread misogyny that he would be cool with queer people somehow. Can someone find a law that Sankara sponsored or even a speech Sankara made where Sankara gave his support to queer Burkinabe?