It’s the same reason I refer to Lady Graham as such: because they’re a powerful politician who have a core personal trait that’s inimical to their base that they try REALLY hard to hide, and that the conservative news sphere tends to help hide (for now).
It’s an open secret that Graham is a HUGE closet case, and he has backed every single heinously anti-gay law, resolution, and regulation that crosses his desk, amongst many other awful things.
Similarly, Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa) is campaigning on staunchly immigrant-hostile policies (again: amongst many other awful things), but is herself a (white-passing) immigrant.
We are simply hoisting them on the petard of their own hypocrisy. If these inconsistencies are repeatedly, consistently, and unavoidably pointed out, it’ll start to filter through to their base, and the racist elements of the GOP (but I repeat myself) will start to notice, and her viability as a candidate will diminish. It’s an unfortunate tactic that we feel forced to take, but we do feel forced to take it, as this is very much an existential political struggle.
Edit: I do want to say that /u/naught absolutely has their head in the right place, and that I further deeply wish I didn’t feel like shitty tactics like that are genuinely and truly necessary at this point in time. The fact that I may be willing to stoop to rhetorical levels that /u/naught isn’t does not make me more “right” than they are. I just have a different calculus about what I’m willing to do in a political context that I view as pretty dire.
Lady Graham is pretty offensive IMO. You can’t just take a bigoted joke and throw it at bad people. You’re still participating in homophobia. If a black republican ran for president I wouldn’t be asking to see his birth certificate, let alone be throwing racial epithets
I get where you’re coming from - I really do. In any other context I wouldn’t use such a targeted epithet.
But the pack of political shitgoblins that is the GOP have turned overtly fascist. They’re looking at Handmaid’s Tale as an aspirational goal instead of a harrowing cautionary tale about how fascism and authoritarianism rises and then entrenches itself. I will apologize to anyone who wants, and will accept any level of ridicule or ostracism that people feel I deserve due to how I target hypocritical, caustic, (small-d) anti-democratic politicians who are actively trying to destroy the advances our society has made after we build a bulwark against that bullshit. I myself am not enthusiastic about targeting people that way, but I genuinely do think that the situation warrants it.
The GOP is not following any rulebook at this point. Hamstringing effective psychological attacks against their base because it generates splash damage to some populations is something I see as a necessary evil because the GOP fully intends to do far, FAR worse to those populations if they gain and solidify their hold on American government for the foreseeable future.
So… yeah. It’s a shitty tactic. But the “critical failure” end-state of all this bullshit is “it’s illegal to be gay again” (amongst many other things), and from where I’m standing, that’s orders of magnitudes worse than having to repair any reputation and relationships I have with gay people - or even simply living with the fact that I’ve permanently offended people because used a dirty rhetorical tactic when it seemed like one of the best and most effective non-violent choices in a set of bad options.
I feel you 100%. For my own sanity, I feel like I have to draw a line in the sand and hold myself to a higher standard than the fascists. It would feel good to stoop to their level for sure, but then how do I tell myself that Im better than that? How could I claim to be? I just wish everyone had the capacity for empathy and kindness. It’s insanity that so much of our suffering is man-made through ignorance and small mindedness.
I’m sure the gays will forgive you, but please consider how a gay person would feel hearing “Lady Graham” when there are so many things otherwise wrong with him you could comment on. You’re putting an inherent negative spin on being gay - which of course is the point since Graham would happily do the same - but still.
I think hypocrisy is the key ingredient that changes people’s behavior here. By default, we should treat other humans with compassion and respect. A politician being gay/trans/minority normally shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation. However, if that politician happens to be gay, and they consistently work to harm gay people, people have the urge to call that out even if they are an ally.
Yeah, that’s more or less exactly my logic. If they actively harm a group of people that they belong to, and then expect that group and it’s allies to stand up and defend them… well, that’s gonna be a nope from me, dawg.
Hypocritical politicians like that deserve a live and very personal preview of the bigotry that they’re actively pushing for.
If a black republican ran for president I wouldn’t be asking to see his birth certificate.
Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin is racist. This is prejudice, which is racism regardless of your intention. Full stop.
The point is that nobody asks the white candidates for one. Equitable treatment is not assuming the american politician running for office was born somewhere else based on the color of their skin. Remember birtherism
It’s the same reason I refer to Lady Graham as such: because they’re a powerful politician who have a core personal trait that’s inimical to their base that they try REALLY hard to hide, and that the conservative news sphere tends to help hide (for now).
It’s an open secret that Graham is a HUGE closet case, and he has backed every single heinously anti-gay law, resolution, and regulation that crosses his desk, amongst many other awful things.
Similarly, Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa) is campaigning on staunchly immigrant-hostile policies (again: amongst many other awful things), but is herself a (white-passing) immigrant.
We are simply hoisting them on the petard of their own hypocrisy. If these inconsistencies are repeatedly, consistently, and unavoidably pointed out, it’ll start to filter through to their base, and the racist elements of the GOP (but I repeat myself) will start to notice, and her viability as a candidate will diminish. It’s an unfortunate tactic that we feel forced to take, but we do feel forced to take it, as this is very much an existential political struggle.
Edit: I do want to say that /u/naught absolutely has their head in the right place, and that I further deeply wish I didn’t feel like shitty tactics like that are genuinely and truly necessary at this point in time. The fact that I may be willing to stoop to rhetorical levels that /u/naught isn’t does not make me more “right” than they are. I just have a different calculus about what I’m willing to do in a political context that I view as pretty dire.
Lady Graham is pretty offensive IMO. You can’t just take a bigoted joke and throw it at bad people. You’re still participating in homophobia. If a black republican ran for president I wouldn’t be asking to see his birth certificate, let alone be throwing racial epithets
Two wrongs and all that.
I get where you’re coming from - I really do. In any other context I wouldn’t use such a targeted epithet.
But the pack of political shitgoblins that is the GOP have turned overtly fascist. They’re looking at Handmaid’s Tale as an aspirational goal instead of a harrowing cautionary tale about how fascism and authoritarianism rises and then entrenches itself. I will apologize to anyone who wants, and will accept any level of ridicule or ostracism that people feel I deserve due to how I target hypocritical, caustic, (small-d) anti-democratic politicians who are actively trying to destroy the advances our society has made after we build a bulwark against that bullshit. I myself am not enthusiastic about targeting people that way, but I genuinely do think that the situation warrants it.
The GOP is not following any rulebook at this point. Hamstringing effective psychological attacks against their base because it generates splash damage to some populations is something I see as a necessary evil because the GOP fully intends to do far, FAR worse to those populations if they gain and solidify their hold on American government for the foreseeable future.
So… yeah. It’s a shitty tactic. But the “critical failure” end-state of all this bullshit is “it’s illegal to be gay again” (amongst many other things), and from where I’m standing, that’s orders of magnitudes worse than having to repair any reputation and relationships I have with gay people - or even simply living with the fact that I’ve permanently offended people because used a dirty rhetorical tactic when it seemed like one of the best and most effective non-violent choices in a set of bad options.
I feel you 100%. For my own sanity, I feel like I have to draw a line in the sand and hold myself to a higher standard than the fascists. It would feel good to stoop to their level for sure, but then how do I tell myself that Im better than that? How could I claim to be? I just wish everyone had the capacity for empathy and kindness. It’s insanity that so much of our suffering is man-made through ignorance and small mindedness.
I’m sure the gays will forgive you, but please consider how a gay person would feel hearing “Lady Graham” when there are so many things otherwise wrong with him you could comment on. You’re putting an inherent negative spin on being gay - which of course is the point since Graham would happily do the same - but still.
I think hypocrisy is the key ingredient that changes people’s behavior here. By default, we should treat other humans with compassion and respect. A politician being gay/trans/minority normally shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation. However, if that politician happens to be gay, and they consistently work to harm gay people, people have the urge to call that out even if they are an ally.
Yeah, that’s more or less exactly my logic. If they actively harm a group of people that they belong to, and then expect that group and it’s allies to stand up and defend them… well, that’s gonna be a nope from me, dawg.
Hypocritical politicians like that deserve a live and very personal preview of the bigotry that they’re actively pushing for.
Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin is racist. This is prejudice, which is racism regardless of your intention. Full stop.
… what? I think you misread. I said I “wouldn’t”
Right, the conditional for not asking was the…wait for it… Color of skin & political affiliation. That’s prejudicial shit. Intent doesn’t matter.
The point is that nobody asks the white candidates for one. Equitable treatment is not assuming the american politician running for office was born somewhere else based on the color of their skin. Remember birtherism