• Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I don’t see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.

      Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying “Barrack HUSSEIN Obama” funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner’s chosen name but not Nikki’s? If it’s not a joke, that is, you think it’s a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?

      So from personal experience, I learned Obama’s middle name from the mouths’ of racists, I learned Biden’s middle name from the mouths’ toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner’s deadname from bigots. I don’t like playing the “true name” game.

      Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you’ve convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians’ birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Still has Barrack Hussein Obama vibes. What point are we making here?

          Like yeah, she’s a race traitor cosplaying a white woman, but surely we have better points to make than hoping her base is racist enough to hate her based on a vaguely foreign name, which is not really at all a secret. meh.

          Edit: Plenty of people change their names to more Americanized versions. This is probably the least egregious thing she has ever done… This is a trivial point at best and hypocritical at worst

          • foggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            But Barrack was an African American democrat with an extremely progressive base?

            The point being made here was quite clearly missed by you.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              My point is that we’re calling out her scary foreign name for brownie points with racists and xenophobes. I understand how very different the situations are otherwise. Idk why everyone on lemmy is so aggressive lately jeezus

              • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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.

                • naught@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

                  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    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.