I know that there are a lot of trans people on hexbear, and I know their beliefs are sincere. What I don’t understand is how they square the fact that they would be brutally suppressed, raped, tortured, murdered by the very groups/governments they unwaveringly love and support. It sickens me. Is it a manifestation of self-hatred? I just don’t get why they would degrade themselves like this.

  • Chronographs@lemmy.zipEnglish
    2720·
    9 months ago

    For the most part because you can support their right not to be bombed into oblivion to further America’s imperial ambitions and also disagree with how they treat their lgbtq people. Often these countries were left leaning in the past until America installed a right-wing government.

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      361·
      9 months ago

      But you can support these people without supporting their corrupt and violent government?

      I stand for solidarity with all peoples, not their rulers.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
      187·
      9 months ago

      Often these countries were left leaning in the past until America installed a right-wing government

      Ahh, we’re lying again.

        • Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.socialEnglish
          36·
          9 months ago

          It is both an outgrowth of UK and US directly funding and supporting Muslim extremism to divide opposition to colonialism/imperialism since Jews, Christians, and leftists would be alienated and the rally around the flag type of effect of using already at-hand identity markers to opposed invaders and oppressors. The entire cold war was the US and sometimes their vassals like Saudi Arabia funding and supporting Islamism, as a counterweight to secular leftist forms of anti-colonialism, which they were actively suppressing, because of its incompatibility with socialism/communism.

          Most easy and obvious examples is the Mujaheddin, aka proto-Al Qaeda and Taliban precursor. And Israel supporting Hamas over the PLO since the PLO was a secular organization that appealed to human rights.

        • Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.socialEnglish
          82·
          9 months ago

          Almost exclusively backed fascists and dictators one might say. Important facet of the Cold War, “say what you will about fascists, they will never go soft on Communists.”

          • Chronographs@lemmy.zipEnglish
            6·
            9 months ago

            You’re not wrong that I could have been more engaging that just dropping a link but it didn’t seem like there would be much point when the person I was responding to was just calling me a liar. I’m way too burnt out to argue with people and proselytize/do praxis in general but op asked a question so I figured I would answer.

    • goat@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      but the islamic revolution was in opposition to the US. Why do that to themselves?

      • Chronographs@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        They didn’t do the islamic revolution but they did do a coup 26 years earlier (for oil, of course) which installed the government that the islamic revolution was revolting against.

        Edit: For more context these are some of the policies of the man the US overthrew (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Prime_Minister_of_Iran)

        The new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labour in their landlords’ estates. In 1952, Mosaddegh passed the Land Reform Act, which forced landlords to place 20% of their revenue into a development fund. This development fund paid for various projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.[34]

        In March 1951, Mosaddegh nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, cancelling its oil concession, which was otherwise set to expire in 1993, and expropriating its assets. Mosaddegh saw the AIOC as an arm of the British government controlling much of the oil in Iran, pushing him to seize what the British had built in Iran.[35] The next month, a committee of five majlis deputies was sent to Khuzistan to enforce the nationalisation.[36][37] Mosaddegh justified his nationalisation policy by claiming Iran was “the rightful owner…” of all the oil in Iran.