LGBT Hypocrisy

submitted by TheJamesRocket from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Negative. It's the difference between the near enemy and the far enemy. This essay explains it a lot better than I could, please read the whole thing: http://archive.is/QRJ6m

Imagine hearing that a liberal talk show host and comedian was so enraged by the actions of ISIS that he’d recorded and posted a video in which he shouts at them for ten minutes, cursing the “fanatical terrorists” and calling them “utter savages” with “savage values”.

If I heard that, I’d be kind of surprised. It doesn’t fit my model of what liberal talk show hosts do.

But the story I’m actually referring to is liberal talk show host / comedian Russell Brand making that same rant against Fox News for supporting war against the Islamic State, adding at the end that “Fox is worse than ISIS”.

That fits my model perfectly. You wouldn’t celebrate Osama’s death, only Thatcher’s. And you wouldn’t call ISIS savages, only Fox News. Fox is the outgroup, ISIS is just some random people off in a desert. You hate the outgroup, you don’t hate random desert people.

I would go further. Not only does Brand not feel much like hating ISIS, he has a strong incentive not to. That incentive is: the Red Tribe is known to hate ISIS loudly and conspicuously. Hating ISIS would signal Red Tribe membership, would be the equivalent of going into Crips territory with a big Bloods gang sign tattooed on your shoulder.

But this might be unfair. What would Russell Brand answer, if we asked him to justify his decision to be much angrier at Fox than ISIS?

He might say something like “Obviously Fox News is not literally worse than ISIS. But here I am, talking to my audience, who are mostly white British people and Americans. These people already know that ISIS is bad; they don’t need to be told that any further. In fact, at this point being angry about how bad ISIS is, is less likely to genuinely change someone’s mind about ISIS, and more likely to promote Islamophobia. The sort of people in my audience are at zero risk of becoming ISIS supporters, but at a very real risk of Islamophobia. So ranting against ISIS would be counterproductive and dangerous.

When a friend of mine heard Eich got fired, she didn’t see anything wrong with it. “I can tolerate anything except intolerance,” she said. “Intolerance” is starting to look like another one of those words like “white” and “American”.

“I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Doesn’t sound quite so noble now, does it?

[–]just_lesbian_things 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You wouldn’t celebrate Osama’s death, only Thatcher’s.

I celebrated neither.

And you wouldn’t call ISIS savages, only Fox News. Fox is the outgroup, ISIS is just some random people off in a desert

Wrong again. 0/4. Fox News is propaganda and ISIS are terrorists. Don't worry, I got enough hate in my heart for everyone. See? It's amazing what you can do when you drop the bi partisan shit.

Negative. It's the difference between the near enemy and the far enemy.

It's not "negative" if you agree with what I'm saying. It is the difference between near and far enemy. You're angrier at your mom for burning your tendies than you are at Donald Trump for wasting millions in taxpayer dollars playing golf. Likewise, western LGBT activists who have been subjected to homophobia by their Christian neighbors are angrier about that than homophobic Muslims doing homophobic things far away. It's not a matter of in-group out-group, people aren't ganging up to spite you (mostly), it's a matter of personal vs. impersonal.