4d ago

It's baffling to me that hexbear claims to be the most trans-positive space online while also having mandatory support of Hamas, the Houthis, Russia, Iran, etc. as a core part of the site culture

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

83 comments

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.
- But you can support these people without supporting their corrupt and violent government?
  I stand for solidarity with all peoples, not their rulers.
- Often these countries were left leaning in the past until America installed a right-wing government
  Ahh, we're lying again.
  
  it’s not a lie necessarily but i’d agree that it’s disingenuous to point towards these moments in history and to then use that as a tenuous basis for implying that the right-wing extremism in the middle east just popped up one day out of a vacuum only because evil american goblins invaded the land. i am well aware of what the OP comment is referring to, generally, but the description of these societies as “left-leaning” doesn’t really land for me. like i said, it’s not necessarily wrong but it’s somewhat disingenuous and binary to say that.
  surprise, every society-at-scale, ever, has been metrically shit and had a significant contingent of traditionalist and bigots that form the bedrock of the historical “go-fuck-yourself-with-a-stick-of-razorblades” party.
  
  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.
  
  The U.S has backed fascists and dictators in other countries before.
  Edit: downvote me all you wish, it doesn't change the fact that the U.S backed fascists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
  
  The U.S only backs fascists and dictators in other countries.
  fixed it for you.
  
  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."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
  
  you’ll sway more hearts and minds if you actually engage your audience, not spoken maliciously.
  being catty like this is anti-intellectual and serves to degrade spaces, even if it can be cathartic at times.
  like, just practically speaking i saw a guy earlier on lemmy do the exact same thing and just drop a link to wikipedia in response to discourse and then sit there and look at the other person like smug wojack.
  i even agreed with that guy’s position and i watched him do it, cheering on from the sidelines like it was some wrestling match. i upvoted him. but then later i went back and undid my vote because i realized that his detractors had a legitimate criticism - that this behavior is thought-terminating and patently shit on a forum intended for discourse and discussion.
  think about it. the people who likely need to read, analyze, and consider that article are going to take the way you just shared it as smug and immediately ignore any point you were possibly trying to make, because they aren’t even going to engage any further than their initial flippant reaction. and that’s not their fault, it’s yours for setting up this subpar rhetorical framing.
  on the other hand, people who already agree with you will sit on the sidelines and hoot and cheer and howl and bark because they came to the arena to see blood - just like me earlier in this comment. it’s a human response. without an actual audience, though, it becomes clear the intention of your comment isn’t to spread information or praxis… no, this comment serves as a vector for circlejerking much more than it is a genuine attempt at activism. and i think even if you disagree, deep down you have to know that on some level.
  sorry, i don’t mean to single you out but this style of exchange has become all too common in public discourse nowadays and i hate it because it’s like a fucking sports match. just shout louder, be more smug, be more persistent… and then you “win” the argument, whatever that means… this isn’t what debate, dialectic, and discourse are about!
  
  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.
- but the islamic revolution was in opposition to the US. Why do that to themselves?
  
  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.
  
  They didn’t do the islamic revolution
  The islamic revolution is the iranian revolution.
  
  Yes I was saying they as in America didn’t do the islamic/iranian revolution
  
  oh okay. you just linked to the iranian revolution, so
  
  Oh, my bad. I fixed the link

83 comments