Which group is weirder?

Post Reply New Topic

JD Vance, whose wife is a brown skinned Asian Indian practicing Hindu was just picked as VP by Trump (champion of American Christian Nationalists) who believe in "replacement theory". And then there is Vivek Ramaswamy - a practicing Hindu son of brown immigrants from South Asia who gleefully and dutifully kissed the asses of the White nationalist MAGA movement ...only to still get rejected. And told by Ann Coulter to his face that she could "never vote for him" because of his background.

On the other hand ...there are American Progressive members of LBGTQ community who take the side of Palestine against Israel in the current war...in theory thats not the same thing a favoring HAMAS...but in practice it DOES mean that. And HAMAS oppresses and kill LBGTQ folks....while Israel has a pretty good human rights record toward the LBGTQ community.

So ...which group is wierder. Brown skinned folks joining a White supremist anti immigrant political movement ...or LBGTQ folks supporting an anti LBGTQ regime? Or does politics always "make strange bedfellows"?

I don't think anyone is weird for exercising free will.

Ann Coulter's approach to conservatism is probably out of date, although with her still being a highly popular figure, that possibility probably doesn't get raised too often in public.

And aren't we supposed to be actively supporting the Palestinian side in the Gaza War, without regard to sexuality?

I clicked on idk because I feel like I don't know anything anymore when it comes to this kind of thing

It's like being for and against something has just become the same thing imo

Churchill and Roosevelt were allied to Stalin to rid the world of Hitler. So yes you can ally yourself with a group who does things you dont approve of---ally with them against a common enemy thats worse, or an immediate threat.

How many queer people actually support Hamas, vs support Palestine's right to exist with the acknowledgement that Hamas is one of the few groups willing to actually fight for that cause?

I went with neither are hypocritical given that as much as one can argue a person is voting or otherwise offering support that's contrary to their own interests, often that assessment ignores which interests that individual is prioritizing. With that in mind, even if you believe it's true, it's almost always received as very condescending to argue someone is lending support contrary to their own interests.

I think I'd pick the first one. An analogy I would tell my students when I taught school was : I used to work at a place called Power Packaging; we packed ink cartridges for printers. We might have a run for 5,000 of Hewlett Packard cartridges; 5,000 for Epsen cartridges; maybe 5,000 cartridges for Toshiba and so on. They never changed the type of ink cartridge just the package it went into. To use this analogy; a group that says I am superior because I think my outside appearance (package) is better shows they do not realize we are all the same cartridge on the inside. I would use this analogy for race, sex, or Republicans. For somebody to want to join such a low IQ group as this is weird.

People of color supporting conservatism is naive, but still understandable to some degree. Conservatism is about the necessity or desirability of hierarchy. Even if conservative people of color realize they will not be at the top of that hierarchy, they might be willing to accept it as long as they still get to be above other groups they think deserve to be beneath them. This especially makes sense when, for example, you consider most Latin American immigrants to the US are Catholic--not exactly eager supporters of queers, Muslims, feminists, etc.
That being said, Muslims, despite many being conservative and sharing similar values to many Christian conservatives, are so completely vilified by the right in the self-proclaimed West that even their similarities are not enough to overcome that.


And ah yes, the nonsense about queers like me being hypocrites or naive or whatever for supporting Palestine.
Let me put it to you this way: would queers seem objective to you if their only consideration with regard to this conflict was which side, on paper, supports queer people more? Hell no.

Here's a more meaningful comparison: Are Christian Zionists hypocrites for supporting a state which relegates their fellow Christians to second-class citizenship? I can't think of a single time I've seen a Zionist Christian take issue with how the Zionist Israeli public treats Israeli Christians or Palestinian Christians. Christian Zionists are apparently okay with screwing over their fellow Christians as long as it screws over Muslims more. To be fair, many of those Christians are brown, and Zionism is nothing if not based on the idea that brown people are subhuman.

Israel doesn't care two figs about fags like me. Israel shows no mercy to the queer Palestinians whose oppression they supposedly lament. Israel is a reactionary, fundamentally conservative state that only pretends to care about fags like me for political capital. Israel treats us as a prop to show how liberal they are on the surface and distract from how genocidal they are underneath.
Queers know what it is like to be under the heel of oppressors. We have more in common with Palestinians than we have with a bunch of South Africa-wannabe settler-colonizers. Should I support a country just because they aren't oppressing a group I belong to in particular? Lol would that make me less of a "hypocrite"? Lol would that make me seem objective to you people? What a laugh!

I think it is very telling any time someone acts shocked--like I'm unreasonable or naive--that my politics aren't exclusively self-serving. What does that say about you, that you think knee-jerk political self-centeredness is logical and reasonable?

A thoroughly meaningless statement.

First...there is no "free will". Only the illusion of free will.

Second do all people who exercise their illusion of free will deserve praise?

Criminals and etc?

You will hafta elaborate on your comment in order for it to have any meaning.

First of all the survey is asking about specifically those brown people who support the MAGA and Queers who support Hamas.

With the brown people there are these factors are involved. Among brown people there is significant amount of social conservatism/traditional values. It is not unusual for older immigrants to resent newer ones. The MAGA’s emphasis is on illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants often do resent illegal ones.

As far as Queers for Hamas I do not know. But whatever it is, it is a lot more than weirdness.

The MAGA movement claims to only be anti illegals, but theyre really anti all immigrants.

People supporting other groups or causes for what other think is the wrong reasons happens all the time. Fractions of American christians support Israel at the same time that they hate jews while other American christians support Trump even though they know that he's an atheist and adulterer. Donald Trump was born with a silver spoon in his hand but a lot of his supporters think he's a self made man and an underdog fighting the Elite. From an outside perspective a lot of what's going on in the US seems weird and stupid.

I disagree with what you wrote. I think Isabella can speak for herself. But I would interpret what she wrote and say that everything doesn't have to be judged or condemned. And that doesn't mean I'm praising it.

Things can just be what they are. Just like people can co-exist without loving or hating each other (I do wish we were better at it).

Who am I to judge someones decisions without knowing their reasoning. I do not tolerate intolerance, hate and so on...

Regarding the poll, I do agree with funeralxempire's reasoning about neither are hypocritical.

I think we are all hypocritical to some degree or another, myself included.

I will say that both of these options feel jarring and I think progressives supporting Palestine seems like the more jarring one to me.

On the "Sesame Street" 20th anniversary special there was a segment about the show being translated into different languages. Executive Producer Joan Ganz-Cooney said this:

I think that's sweet and that's what I once would have thought of as the "Liberal" position on the matter. If I understand correctly, that *is* the "Liberal" position, but "Liberal" and "Progressive" aren't the same thing. Some "Progressives" now seem to side entirely with Palestine and don't want there to be an Israel at all. I don't understand enough about this conflict to comment further than simply saying, this comes off as sudden and jarring to me, a random, admittedly politically uninformed person.

Yeah some people on this very site have actually started threads giving "evidence" that the foundation of the State of Israel was tantamount to a violation of International Law.

Why the scare quotes around evidence?