Yes, the prominent association between 'Republican" and “closeted gay man,” is homophobic. No, there does not have to be 0% gay Republicans for it to not be homophobic. You are not pointing out “hypocrisy,” you are reasserting that it is in fact gay people always hurting themselves and hiding amongst us (not even to mention the literal pedophilia and child sexual violence that this admin is obviously participatory in and the association between “stranger danger” and gay men).

Even beyond that, to focus on the “hypocrisy” of gay Republicans for being gay and that being the problem obscures the racialized and class dynamics behind queer political representation, and queer history. These institutions unsurprisingly privilege property-owning, white people who have always been more insulated from the consequences of homophobia. It is not even remotely new or republican for wealthy gay men to be conservative or exhibit zero solidarity with the queer community because, guess what, they understand that they benefit from the subordination of those groups (and make no mistake, Dems who do vote for “pro-LGBT” laws are by no means doing so in solidarity with queer people; we are subjects of another genocidal wave in the US for a reason).

Even beyond that, no, making jokes about how Donald Trump is a bad guy because he sucks Putin’s cock or whatever is not pointing out “hypocrisy,” it’s just calling someone gay because it is synonymous with “weak,” or “submissive.” If the joke is indistinguishable from “real” homophobic jokes, then that’s just what it is. Liberals have had a hayday getting to express their bigotry with perceived righteousness now that they finally have a “deserving” group of people to channel it through.

It’s the same shit with the rampant ableism, fatphobia, queerphobia, and ageism that have become commonplace in liberal discourses that emphasize the “hypocrisy” of these people. What vulnerable group do I get to make fun of instead of you for how hypocritical you are?

Hey, read the sources I provided.

That was a lot of words for, “yes, I forgot.” Guy’s own fucking words, you chud. He meant it to be a parallel, grow the fuck up. Not everything is about comforting you, FFS.

lol, lmao even. Literally the most famous video game instance of it:

https://www.reversecanarymission.org/person/neil-druckmann

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-not-so-hidden-israeli-politics-of-the-last-of-us-part-ii/

https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

Maybe read a bit eh. Did you like, forget this was a famous story not three years ago?

I guess Zionism is a bold innovation in video game storytelling now.

Edit: putting this here because I know you goddamn morons arent gonna read two comments down:

https://www.reversecanarymission.org/person/neil-druckmann

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-not-so-hidden-israeli-politics-of-the-last-of-us-part-ii/

https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

This isn’t even a controversial association, you people have to fucking grow up.

“Druckmann has openly stated that the themes of revenge and cyclical violence in The Last of Us Part II stem from his reaction to the 2000 Ramallah lynching of two Israeli soldiers, where footage of the event filled him with “intense hatred” and a desire to “kill all these people that committed this horrible act” and “make them feel the same pain.” He later reflected on feeling “gross and guilty” for these impulses, but used them as the foundation for the game’s narrative. Druckmann also draws parallels to Israeli politics, citing the 2011 exchange of over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, noting how his father viewed the deal as harmful to Israel overall but would release every prisoner to save his own son. These inspirations manifest in The Last of Us Part II’s portrayal of warring factions: the secular, militarized Washington Liberation Front (WLF), equipped with advanced weaponry and resources, mirrors the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) as a “brutal but well-intended” military, while the Seraphites, a religious cult engaging in ritual disembowelment and fanaticism, dehumanizes Palestinians as an extremist threat akin to Hamas.”

Right so, this is definitely related to what “purity politics” means, but not what I was referencing. I’m talking about the (liberal) tendency on this site for people to supposedly challenge purity-based political systems and ideologies like fascism, white supremacy, and settler-colonialism one minute, and then accept “piece of technology corrupts the human soul,” as an explanation for something better explained through systemic analysis or cultural critique.

The idea that “people’s brains don’t work because of AI,” is deepy puritanical in nature, and attributes the harmful quality to the technology itself and not the socioeconomic conditions where what that AI produces is made subject to liberal capitalist imperatives and logics. Conveniently, it then takes those values for granted in favour of a narrative that is also markedly ableist in its message. Oh, do people who are disabled and require AI use to access ableist education institutions or information on the increasingly oblique and inaccessible internet “wreck their brains?” I wonder if a fascist would even disagree with that narrative.

This is why I can’t talk to most men for more than a minute.

You seriously have to start reading your own comments before you post them. Reread the thread ✌️

Okay, this person is completely incorrect in their claim about sharecropping. But yes, the US federal government did not think slavery was an issue worth going to war to end. The Confederacy explicitly existed to continue slavery even though it was not threatened whatsoever in the South and more by freesoilers out west, including Lincoln and most “antislavery” activists. The US invaded the Confederacy because the Confederacy picked a fight and decided to shoot first, it was not about any moral ground. The decision to implement antislavery policy as a tactic during the war is more accurately attributed to the growing food and resource crisis the Confederacy suffered relative to the huge advantage that guaranteeing freedom to the overwhelming enslaved population there created.

So, yes, it was good that slavery was abolished as a consequence of this War, but it would be distortive to suggest the Union fought to do that specifically. Solidarity among property-owning classes was a much more influential element in whether war broke out, and was indeed a huge reason why the war did not start until southerners started it despite the many good moral reasons to shut it down.

I asked for any source and you linked some (inadequate) secondary sources below that simply discuss that sharecropping was discriminatory. Slavery wasn’t bad just because it was racist, and you clearly thought that was the case. I’d be happy to provide a reading list when I have a minute.

Also, you not only said that, but you said it multiple times explicitly throughout this thread. Bud, you gotta stop pretending to know about shit you clearly don’t know well enough about.

Okay, Im not 100% certain of what you think you’re saying, but this and the comment below aren’t coherent.

You said sharecropping was worse than slavery, and that is not elevating the systemic racism experienced by African Americans in a post-Civil War era to the present, it actually diminishes it by denying the severity of slavery. I don’t think you realize what you’ve said, because it is immensely racist.

Black women’s bodies were objectified for their reproductive capacity throughout the history of slavery in the US, but especially so in the early decades of the 19th century after the importation of enslaved peoples was banned and the only source of growth for that population was through their bodies. This meant they were raped to produce more slaves dude, sexual violence is inherent to slavery, but think for a minute about just how brutal that single element of the institution is. This is of course not even the only form of sexual violence that occurred within African American enslavement in the US; white slave owners regularly raped women they claimed ownership over, engaged in sexual humiliation as a form of punishment, in Louisiana, wealthy owners would even participate in balls or galas where they’d display their “mistresses,” which were enslaved women.

This isn’t even getting into the myriad of other vectors of violence, the brutal punishments that were inflicted on them, the degree of forced labour, forced malnutrition (yes, worse than simply being a poor farmer), the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 even allowed the abduction and forced enslavement of relatively any African American in slave or free states should they find themselves in an unfortunate position.

The reason why slavery was bad is the same reason there are constant attempts by racists in the US to claim that racism is over because the “actual” bad elements of it are abolished and the only reason there is discrimination afterward is due to some innate flaw in black people or individuals’ character. They did it after slavery was abolished, after black men were elected to political positions, after the great migration, after the Civil Rights Act, after Obama got elected. Erasing the brutality of slavery to elevate some other form of oppression neglects the reality that those two forms of oppression are relational, both in their historical developments and in the ways each are facilitated within a racist system.

Please, do not spread misinformation irresponsibly, even if you’re trying to do something good.

Bud, I’m gonna have to see some sources on the sharecropping claim. Either you haven’t read enough slave narratives, or there is some insanely obscured events related to sharecropping.

Edit: Okay, so we’ve confirmed this dude is just racist.

The whiplash between apparent anti-fascism and purity politics on this site is wild.

Me when my kids cut me off:

It’s important to also remember that fascists construct queer people as insane, and it’s completely reasonable for even an insane queer person to shoot an armed fascist. Would they not deserve a little tequila shot before and after, as a treat?

Right, so, do you think “meeting a racist at their own level” by making racist jokes as a white person is justifiable? Can you maybe think about why it would be a problem to presume that you can say bigoted shit about groups you clearly aren’t a part of just because you think people who infamously don’t give a shit about what you say are going to be hurt by it?

If the impact of your actions is that you reproduce the cultural devaluing of elderly, disabled, and queer people, what the fuck are you even mad at this guy about, exactly? This is why we have the saying, “scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds,” because despite the purported difference in politics, there are shared hierarchal, bigoted cultural values between the people who subscribe to each ideology respectively.

How convenient, they get to he bigoted because the bad guys are bigoted, guess that means nobody has to not be bigoted now.

“It’s just a joke.” Uhuh.

I get some of you will get pissed off by this, but I’m seriously disappointed that people are still using “haha he gay for Russian man,” and “incontinence is why he’s bad,” as their primary criticisms of an actual fucking fascist pedo rapist. It’s homophobic, it’s ableist, it’s bigoted. I wonder why that’s what they focus on, like, where would they learn to take note of those things specifically? 🤔

Guy’s a pedorapist in charge of nukes y’all, stop dunking on your gay grandpas like you’re doing something to him.

Edit because I did have people get pissed by this: If the impact of your actions is that you reproduce the cultural devaluing of elderly, disabled, and queer people, what the fuck are you even mad at this guy about, exactly? This is why we have the saying, “scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds,” because despite the purported difference in politics, there are shared hierarchal, bigoted cultural values between the people who subscribe to each ideology respectively.

Straight up, hiding issues with a rental property should be punishable by barring the landlord from owning any property. Y’know, so long as we’re not abolishing property ownership, seems fair.