It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com's original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
For the sake of argument, let's run with that. Now, which of those lists does landlording fit into?
lmao gotem
Okay, so I see what you're saying, but from my perspective this would be like saying someone openly gay can't be right leaning.
that would have to also necessarily imply that being gay is a choice, similarly to landlording, and that you have no choice but to be a landlord regardless of your political beliefs
A person can only be openly gay and right leaning if they're more racist than they are gay
There are also capitalist gay people. I was going to point to Pete, but he's not a good example of not hating black people.
No, Pete is actually a perfect example of capitalist gay people.
being gay doesn't say anything about personal beliefs or political alignment. it's just one personal feature that might or might not influence your political thinking. people in privileged possitions tend to lean right because they tend to benefit from the current system regardless if they are part of a generally opressed minority
Being openly gay does though.
not really - you can be gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward. these personal identity markers are subsumed by material interests and therefore class. it's, for example, why so many white, wealthy gay people are significantly to the right of where they were 40 years ago - cf Peter Thiel. when the state was turned against their existence they were nominally left and as that violence abated, class interests dominated. it's also why so many trans people are communists right now - the state is trying to murder us.
Exactly. And you can be openly gay and a white supremacist, and you can be openly gay and pro-gun, you can be openly gay and a Christian nationalist.
You can be an openly gay, white supremacist, pro-gun, Christian nationalist. You could have 99.99% republican values, but spend your weekends furthering LGBTQ rights. The class structures that subsume indenty aren't as stringent as you present them to be.
Like without even looking it up I bet there are trans Republican groups, do you disagree?
yeah of course. no one is saying class traitors don't exist. but it's on them to prove it. Engels himself was one such person.
Dudette.. your perception and whether or not it's accurate is entirely on you.
being a class traitor requires action. it's not something that exists in the mind. I can't take action on someone else's behalf.
How do you know what actions they've taken?
they wrote about them extensively
Are you talking about them detailing how they act as a landlord?
you make no sense
You said they've extensively detailed their actions... Where?
You should be able to follow what I'm saying by the context of the conversation.
Generally you would not expect a gay Republican to be very proactive in furthering gay rights (Dems don't either most of the time, but w/e). They would spend their time role-playing as "one of the good ones" and get accused of being a subversive is they actually collaborated with queer groups that were anything but "Gays for Trump" type PR campaigns.
This is not just hypothetical, we can see many people of different minority identities who support horrible reaction and only use that identity as a shield from left criticism. Milo Yianopolos (forgot the spelling) publically gave lectures on how lesbians "don't exist" and "need a good d***ing" and defended pedophilia, but never seemed that interested in actually furthering rights even for relations between gay men. Candace Owens famously defended Hitler's domestic policy in public and speaks on black issues mainly to launder conservative talking points using her identity.
I've kind of figured out how you guys function. Thank you for the conversation.
This is borderline (and in my opinion flies right past it) homophobic rhetoric. I would read the responses you get and do some self crit.
You think believing someone can be openly gay and Republican is homophobic?
Or maybe you just don't like the political implications of what I'm saying, and how that effects the practicality of your ideology.
Replace 'openly gay' with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?
Uhhh, yeah I'm sure people who support universal healthcare have that hardwired into their brain from childhood. Totally the same thing.
it's totally not a conclusion based on analysis of material conditions.
Ugh.. I'm kind of tired of clarifying this. I didn't say 'gay' I said 'openly gay', keyword 'openly', you understand the distinction do you not?
No, I think it's fairly bigoted to compare an open existence to a political act. To say the dignity to exist without hiding one's nature is a political act is pretty fucked up. It's not a political act for straight people to exist.
This exact argument is why people get away with bigotry, calling it all political, implying the non political thing would be to hide and make sure no one sees you.
Perhaps if you're tired of clarifying this, you should rethink your stance.
Well the fact of the matter is open existence is a political issue. It shouldn't be, but it is, and I referenced it because it was appropriate to the topic of discussion. Like the whole fact that this is a contentious subject is why I referenced it.
Just to be clear, are you denying that the right has traditionally been anti-lgbtq?
Rethink it how?
Sorry that's your implication not mine.
Also... None of this makes me wrong. I kind of understand now you guys view everything through class structures whereas I'm a pretty staunch individualist. We really don't have common ground for a discussion.
This has been interesting.