this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
365 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19136 readers
4747 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

An image of JD Vance allegedly dressed as a woman and wearing a blonde wig was posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sunday. The unconfirmed image quickly picked up steam and began trending under the hashtag #SofaLoren, a reference to the iconic Italian actress Sophia Loren and false claims that the Republican senator had sex with a couch.

Many commenters online connected Vance’s alleged history of cross-dressing with his legislative history—which has long been a point of concern for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. 

The Ohio senator introduced the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which aims to criminalize medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors.

The Republican vice presidential pick also supports measures to limit classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and labeled critics of so-called “don’t say gay” legislation “groomers.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with this sentiment on a lot of political attacks - especially ones about physical characteristics or things a person can’t control - but in this case I see it used more as “see? This is fine. He clearly thought it was fine too and now he acts like this makes people automatically pedophiles. What the hell is that about?”

People hand wave the others with “hypocrisy” which I don’t think is enough, but this? It’s not the hypocrisy (and those in this thread saying it are actually missing why this is significant/are piling on for the wrong reasons). It’s “this is a totally fine thing to do yet you and your party have decided it isn’t even when you did it yourself for fun.

He did nothing wrong dressing like that, yet he now insists it is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What do you think hypocrisy is, if not this? Because this is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Where did I say this wasn’t hypocritical?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone is really clear what you're saying, even though we seem to be on the same side. You seem to be suggesting that the hypocrisy isn't the real problem, it's that he once did this thing and now claims that it's wrong for others to do it. And that's literally the textbook definition of hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

JD Vance claims dressing in drag is morally wrong yet he himself has dressed in drag in the past. That makes him a hypocrite. That's the hypocrisy that people are pointing out. I don't know what counter-argument you're trying to put forward.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I explained it thoroughly in two comments. You get it or you don’t, I’m done.

One last thing though: that’s not drag.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So is you point that pointing out hypocrisy isn't enough?

I would disagree in part, but that would make way more sense if that's what you've been trying to say.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think the hypocrisy isn’t what matters so much as all the other stuff I’ve explained. People are missing what makes this distinct and why it matters. I’ve explained my stance pretty thoroughly at this point.