buddy you aint kidding
How is it queer erasure when he hasn't done SHIT for the LGBTQ community?
I assume this is about the idea of any gay politician having to downplay their identity to "appeal" to non progressives and non allies.
back on topic, as a gay man myself, Pete is just another affluent white Ivy League-educated technocratic liberal. I know more than enough of them IRL who happen to be gay, they have enough money and power already, and I don't need to support one for president.
How does he make you feel unsafe? You think he'd truly be detrimental to the plight of LGBT people in the US?Honest question, are you queer? Because when I see someone who is that's running from president and continues to make me feel unsafe as a queer man because of his lack of policy or milquetoast approach to discrimination towards us.
I'm gay. And if Pete running for President makes you feel "unsafe", that's a personal problem. He's one of a billion candidates in a massive race.Honest question, are you queer? Because when I see someone who is that's running from president and continues to make me feel unsafe as a queer man because of his lack of policy or milquetoast approach to discrimination towards us.
it's wrong to erase identity to push a narrative that someone is completely out of touch with minority issues when, you know... they are a minority.
Just because someone is a minority in one aspect doesn't mean they're even close to relating to another type of minority. For example, anti-Blackness is ubiquitous in America and broadcasted from the highest mountain tops. Coincidentally, the most racist White Liberals I've ever met just happen to be gay. They grew up racially sheltered in 95+% White localities and the damage was done by the time I met them. That they are themselves minorities didn't mean much. What's paramount is exposure to other people, so that you can see them, befriend them, and experience them as actual people from an early age and not use whatever shorthand society puts into one's head.It is really weird to see supposed progressives erase Buttgieg's status as a marginalized individual and imply he has the same lived experience as Biden or Beto, lol.
There are other candidates this applies to as well, Bernie for instance among others, but in the interest of not derailing I won't bring them up except to say that, in any case, with Buttgieg and them, it's wrong to erase identity to push a narrative that someone is completely out of touch with minority issues when, you know... they are a minority. Naturally they might not know the experience of someone who is of a different marginalized group, but they do know what it's like to be marginalized from society in general.
Now, it's legit to say Pete hasn't spoken up enough about LGBT issues, and I'd agree. But he IS gay. We shouldn't forget that, it's his identity.
It's gross that you try and do an equivalency between someone's religious views (choice) and someone's sexuality (identity)
How does he make you feel unsafe? You think he'd truly be detrimental to the plight of LGBT people in the US?
His current lack of substantive LGBT policies is not great, but as you said, none of the current candidates have done much in that regard. What makes you think he won't eventually make his intentions clear in that respect?
Except it isn't about performance. It's about the community he ends up being adjacent to thanks to his sexuality and failing to run on any policy whatsoever that feels like it makes people like me be seen. Me feeling safe as a queer person is not a "me problem" and when those who have the chance to change something fail to address it that's what perpetuates anything from being different. Spare me the victim blaming.I'm gay. And if Pete running for President makes you feel "unsafe", that's a personal problem. He's one of a billion candidates in a massive race.
There is a very real and ugly strain of thought that got expressed in the Slate article that because Pete is a boring, masculine guy (who's also religious and didn't come out till relatively late in life for his generation) that his masculinity is fraudulent, that he's untrustworthy because there's some inner "queerness" he's deliberately not expressing. And well, that argument can go to hell. The idea that there's some universal "Queer" identity is bullshit. Gay guys can be super masc or super fem- we come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and behavior patterns, and to be angry because someone isn't performatively expresing their sexuality enough for you is again, a personal problem.
You are not a "victim" of Pete running for President.Except it isn't about performance. It's about the community he ends up being adjacent to thanks to his sexuality and failing to run on any policy whatsoever that feels like it makes people like me be seen. Me feeling safe as a queer person is not a "me problem" and when those who have the chance to change something fail to address it that's what perpetuates anything from being different. Spare me the victim blaming.
The issue with the wiretapping scandal is that when the police chief came across the accidental recordings, he had the ability to come forward with them. But instead he chose to continue the (now illegal rather than accidental) wiretaps, which is what eventually led to the firing. The original tapes are still wrapped up in litigation to this day.Just because someone is a minority in one aspect doesn't mean they're even close to relating to another type of minority. For example, anti-Blackness is ubiquitous in America and broadcasted from the highest mountain tops. Coincidentally, the most racist White Liberals I've ever met just happen to be gay. They grew up racially sheltered in 95+% White localities and the damage was done by the time I met them. That they are themselves minorities didn't mean much. What's paramount is exposure to other people, so that you can see them, befriend them, and experience them as actual people from an early age and not use whatever shorthand society puts into one's head.
That's why Mayor Pete's wiretapping scandal doesn't surprise me at all and why minorities are desperate for people that look like them to lead. Black politicians do not leave White people in the dust, so they will be taken care of regardless. It's the latter that usually forgets the former once votes are counted.
We have to do away with the white fragility and tackle these issues as they come, even if they're within our own community. When will we lock-step with the part of our communities that don't look "ideal"? The ones that aren't "sanitized" and "digestible" to the general public?
You're not really giving him a chance to make his case in regards for what he plans to do for the LGBT community if he's elected.Except it isn't about performance. It's about the community he ends up being adjacent to thanks to his sexuality and failing to run on any policy whatsoever that feels like it makes people like me be seen. Me feeling safe as a queer person is not a "me problem" and when those who have the chance to change something fail to address it that's what perpetuates anything from being different. Spare me the victim blaming.
Lmao shut the fuck up.
It sure sounded like that but I think that's more present in these very forums.
This was always what I thought. He doesn't and shouldn't hide him being gay but it shouldn't be smack dab in the middle of his persona. He's just another candidate that happens to be gay and that's how he should handle it. If he's to be President he'll win because of his policies and ideas. Fact of the matter is the vast majority won't vote for him because he's gay just as the majority didn't vote for Obama because he was black."so-called allies and liberals are taking an inherently conservative approach in their criticisms by ignoring Buttigieg's sexual orientation. "
Isn't this a good thing...? Shouldn't people care about his policies and not is sexual orientation?
But yeah, Buttigieg was pulling that whole "im in ur military base, defendin ur freedom of sp33ch" thing and, just, like, no dude that's not how it works
Thanks for helping re-elect Trump!Not a single Democratic candidate has been satisfying for me as a queer man. I never supported Buttigieg and know I won't knowing his awful approach to policy and white bread persona.
I guess I'm approaching it from a position that Buttigieg is not a mass-produced politician and more on the fact that I believe queer identity is all-encompassing and yes, that absolutely includes affluent masculine men. So long as Buttigieg is not attempting to claim oppression that isn't his, I don't think it's right to dismiss his identity as "sanitized" and "digestible to the mainstream", because a lot of queer non-politician people carry the same identity. It starts to veer into "you're not gay enough".
That's not to say never question Buttigieg. If you believe his policies for LGBTQ+ protection are lacking that's absolutely fine. But as far as him personally, his queer identity is as valid as any others'. Not equivalent, but valid.
Lmao you're adorable
Me saying that his identity is accepted more than others isn't some sort of dismissal of his identity. It's the reality for tons of PoC and queer people that don't fit the mold.
If you don't vote democrat in November of 2020 you helped re-electing Trump. It's that simple. You don't have to support Pete in the primaries but if he wins the candidacy, or whomever else does, and if you don't vote democrat you're part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Removing Trump is the #1 priority by any means necessary.Imagine being so daft that you believe not wanting to vote Republican-lite is what gave us Trump, or will continue to give us Trump, despite 40% of voters not even showing up in 2016. Surely it has nothing to do with candidates appealing to the party of literal, actual Nazis as opposed to actually attempting to reach their own base.
Yeah I remember when Bush was making the case for war and was all like "We need to liberate the queer people of Kabul, and we need to do it yesterday"
wait you mean that nonwhite queer folks might not actually find comfort in his 'all lives matter' messaging
shock
Ah, the "minority identity isn't as important if you have money" POV comes out to play again.it's not erasing Buttigieg's sexuality to point out that there is a vast range of life experiences across the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, and that he's literally the least marginalized sort of LGBT person it's possible to be in America. He has far more in common with a cishet white man with a similar background than he does with the sorts of LGBT people who actually live on the margins of society.
If you don't vote democrat in November of 2020 you helped re-electing Trump. It's that simple. You don't have to support Pete in the primaries but if he wins the candidacy, or whomever else does, and if you don't vote democrat you're part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Removing Trump is the #1 priority by any means necessary.
Enjoy the nuanced criticisms and whatnot right now but one in the general election it's a binary choice.
So basically he's not queer enough for you, got it. Someone tell Pete he's been doing the gay thing wrong.it's not erasing Buttigieg's sexuality to point out that there is a vast range of life experiences across the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, and that he's literally the least marginalized sort of LGBT person it's possible to be in America. He has far more in common with a cishet white man with a similar background than he does with the sorts of LGBT people who actually live on the margins of society.
I can agree with that as long as we can stop eating our own once the general rolls around.I voted for Hillary, despite her being a terrible candidate, so I do understand the "pick your battles" mentality. But we have plenty of time until we have to decide on a candidate, and with such a large pool to choose from, it remains important to hold every single one accountable.
He has far more in common with a cishet white man with a similar background than he does with the sorts of LGBT people who actually live on the margins of society.
wait you mean that nonwhite queer folks might not actually find comfort in his 'all lives matter' messaging
shock
Fair enough, I wasn't accusing you of doing it, I apologize if it came off that way. Some people make that argument of representation but not fully understand its implications and it's hard to see who is actively making that implication and who isn't.If you believe I'm dismissing him or his identity, then that's the first problem we have and I'll ask you to not do that. Don't misinterpret me and maybe we can have a decent conversation.
Me saying that his identity is accepted more than others isn't some sort of dismissal of his identity. It's the reality for tons of PoC and queer people that don't fit the mold.
So let's start from there, don't mischaracterize my words to run with the "he's not gay enough" narrative.
It's the imperialist/military angle (mandatory service and continued praise of military).
This is how the mindset of conspiracy theories works. Speculate about something being possibly true about someone or something you don't like, validate it as true using your "feelings", then declare it horrible in order to double down your dislike of someone while attempting to spread your self-created narrative.speaking of which, it is extremely weird for someone to join the military at the age and level of education/career/income attainment that Buttigieg did, and it's really hard to shake the impression that he did so primarily as a cynical act of resume-building, which is pretty gross IMO
"so-called allies and liberals are taking an inherently conservative approach in their criticisms by ignoring Buttigieg's sexual orientation. "
Isn't this a good thing...? Shouldn't people care about his policies and not is sexual orientation?
Weird post.speaking of which, it is extremely weird for someone to join the military at the age and level of education/career/income attainment that Buttigieg did, and it's really hard to shake the impression that he did so primarily as a cynical act of resume-building, which is pretty gross IMO
I mean I would say, like a lot of people, it probably first entered my mind around the time of 9/11, but it always felt like there was something else going on that I needed to focus on, whether it was school or work.
And things really started to shift for me when I visited Iowa. I was a campaign volunteer and knocking on doors in a low-income area of South Central Iowa. I was with a couple of old friends from Harvard. It was just really striking how many teenagers from these rural towns were headed straight to the military as soon as they were old enough.
And it prompted some soul searching for us. I got to thinking about how many of my Harvard classmates had served and there weren't many. Of course, I was raised on some of the legends of the Kennedys and other figures from previous generations, when actually going to a place like Harvard meant it was almost assumed that you would serve. And by the time I was there, the reverse was true.
And so it prompted me to ask myself, "If teenagers in rural communities are routinely stepping up and serving, why have I not been wearing my country's uniform?" And I saw the Reserve as an opportunity to continue to have my career in the private sector. I was in management consulting at the time, but also be doing some kind of public service.
The article is basically saying that this pretty much just amounts to "don't ask, don't tell," and a don't ask, don't tell policy operates on the basis of "I'm still uncomfortable with gayness so please don't tell me about it, it's easier for me to work with you if I don't know about your gayness." It's still homophobic, even if it's not as extreme as wishing violence on LGBTQ or anything.
Just because someone is a minority in one aspect doesn't mean they're even close to relating to another type of minority. For example, anti-Blackness is ubiquitous in America and broadcasted from the highest mountain tops. Coincidentally, the most racist White Liberals I've ever met just happen to be gay. They grew up racially sheltered in 95+% White localities and the damage was done by the time I met them. That they are themselves minorities didn't mean much. What's paramount is exposure to other people, so that you can see them, befriend them, and experience them as actual people from an early age and not use whatever shorthand society puts into one's head.
That's why Mayor Pete's wiretapping scandal doesn't surprise me at all and why minorities are desperate for people that look like them to lead. Black politicians do not leave White people in the dust, so they will be taken care of regardless. It's the latter that usually forgets the former once votes are counted.
Of course, of course. I believe I worded myself very poorly, but regardless apologize. You're both right, the experience of one minority or member of a marginalized group is not equivalent to one in another. Apologies.Okay, so...not all minorities are the same. Specially if we bring other factors such as class and race into the mix.
It's become a problem when people expect us to toe the line for someone queer, but then they're white and have extremely retrograde views on the poor and PoC.
As a popular example, we have people like James Charles, Shane Dawson and Jeffrey Star. All have done or said extremely racist things.
On the politics side we had Aaron Schock, a Republican congressman that was virulently homophobic, now just merrily making out at Coachella.
We had the 'Gays For Trump' mess.
None of this is criticism on Buttigieg. But the conditions in which people like him thrive at the expense of others in our community.
We have to do away with the white fragility and tackle these issues as they come, even if they're within our own community. When will we lock-step with the part of our communities that don't look "ideal"? The ones that aren't "sanitized" and "digestible" to the general public?
Ah, the "minority identity isn't as important if you have money" POV comes out to play again.
Did you only hear about him in writing? Even then, I got a news notification the other day for an article about his husband. Pretty much every interview I've seen has the host bring up his sexuality.Of course, of course. I believe I worded myself very poorly, but regardless apologize. You're both right, the experience of one minority or member of a marginalized group is not equivalent to one in another. Apologies.
Obviously if someone who is gay and white, and says or advocates for something racist, they should be called out for it. I do not mean to imply otherwise. And yeah, PoC are treated very poorly by the white gay community, that is very true.
All I know is, I didn't even know Buttgieg was gay until a few days ago in spite of hearing about him for months now. That doesn't seem right to me, which is the point I was trying to communicate. It's something that's valuable to know that so many people leave out in conversations about him. Of course, it may be that I'm partially at fault here for not doing more reading myself.
I am not. This is specific to a pattern of MO using class to handwave those other aspects. Its come up previously w antisemitism. Bullets dont bounce off with a high enough bank account number.Race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and yes, class, these things are intersectional. Are you disputing this? Your post comes off like that's the case.
It's something that's valuable to know that so many people leave out in conversations about him.
This is how the mindset of conspiracy theories works. Speculate about something being possibly true about someone or something you don't like, validate it as true using your "feelings", then declare it horrible in order to double down your dislike of someone while attempting to spread your self-created narrative.
And so it prompted me to ask myself, "If teenagers in rural communities are routinely stepping up and serving, why have I not been wearing my country's uniform?" And I saw the Reserve as an opportunity to continue to have my career in the private sector. I was in management consulting at the time, but also be doing some kind of public service.
"so-called allies and liberals are taking an inherently conservative approach in their criticisms by ignoring Buttigieg's sexual orientation. "
Isn't this a good thing...? Shouldn't people care about his policies and not is sexual orientation?
Race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and yes, class, these things are intersectional. Are you disputing this? Your post comes off like that's the case.
Enjoy the nuanced criticisms and whatnot right now but one in the general election it's a binary choice.