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.”
Snooggums we sometimes disagree but i honestly expected you of all people to be smart enough/not-subject-to-internet-argument-tunnel-vision enough to see the nuance here.
Both parties play the hypocrisy game, it doesn’t convince anyone. This is distinct even if it feels similar.
You are stating the literal hypocrisy and saying it isn’t hypocrisy. I have no idea what nuance you are saying is there.
Pointing out hypocrisy is actually fairly effective with uninformed people. If they have only a passing interest in JD couch molester, but are made aware of his anti-trans/drag legislation at the same time they find out he was cool doing it himself, they will be likely to not believe his bullshit in the future. No, it won’t swing his base who are already on the cognitive dissonance express, but it might help motivate someone on the fence to get out and vote against him.
The issue is this: hypocrisy is a very surface level complaint. It’s why no one cares about it besides the people complaining about hypocrisy. The hypocrite and their allies do not give a shit. Do any of us give a shit that Republicans calls anyone not-republican hypocrites everyday? No. We hand wave it away and could not care less. We declare the accusation in bad faith and move on.
What Vance did removes the teeth of their major current social argument: that not conforming to ones gender/gender roles makes one a “sexual deviant.” What he did was also in the past, he’s not currently doing it (most likely). So they can easily say “he was young and stupid this isn’t hypocrisy.” But the LARGER issue is his dressing like that meant nothing at all. It represented nothing dark or wrong about him. He did it for fun and that’s ok even if he refuses to acknowledge it.
This is distinct from saying “the issue is he’s a hypocrite” and frankly I think far more impactful. Hypocrisy on its own doesn’t mean much other than you’re an inconsistent person (ignorant or on purpose), which no one honestly cares about outside of close, personal relationships.
The ‘rules for thee but not for me’ kind of hypocrisy is extremely important.
Dude come on the whole point is to who? No one gives a shit! The issue is his dressing like that does not matter regardless of his position or that of the GOP. That photo is only significant because his party acts like it’s indicative of someone being a pedophile. We need non-weird people to see that. That’s the significance. I know you know what I’m saying.
Yes it’s hypocritical. You keep acting like I’m saying it’s not hypocritical, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that is not what’s important here. Calling out hypocrisy in political campaigns is masturbatory, it’s to rile up people who already agree with you. The issue is how drag has been weaponized needlessly. Call attention to that.
Edit: forget it this is pointless clearly. Truly expected people on lemmy to see the issue here but clearly this thread is not the place where I’ll find those people.
I think there’s just a disagreement with your core premise.
There is a subset of people that are not engaged and unaware of Vance’s legislative history or public statements regarding drag. Those people will generally not engage with long thoughtful nuanced discourse. Those are the people that pointing out hypocrisy speaks to. An article or long post just doesn’t work. A quick meme does. It’s a simple cognitive shortcut to get them engaged, and it’s effective. Yes, I get a bit of masturbatory joy when I see that stuff, but it shouldn’t be meant for me. This stuff is meant to go “viral” so it gets in front of the non-engaged eyeballs.
We need to use every single goddamn tool in the toolbox we have to engage people and get them to turn out. All of it. Including pointing out hypocrisy.
Everyone is aware of the GQP’s obsession with drag queens/trans folks/bathrooms/etc. You can attack this obsession with this photo.
Also it’s not drag, which half this thread is calling the image.
Fair enough on the terminology.
So attacking their obsession is okay, but taking it one step further and explaining that they’re not only obsessed but hypocritical somehow makes it out of bounds?
I am truly trying to understand your point, and I think others have too, but it simply isn’t there. Can you just specifically say what you would like to see written when communicating this information to someone? What specifically do you want said about JD Vance when someone posts this photo? I think that might help.
I never described it as out of bounds that is wildly mischaracterizing what I said. Move on dude we’re just not going to see eye to eye.
Make your print more effectively if you want us to understand.
The typo does make this kind of funny ngl. But I won’t be a dick and hide behind it.
Anyway the issue is this: hypocrisy is a very surface level complaint. It’s why no one cares about it besides the people complaining about hypocrisy. The hypocrite and their allies do not give a shit. Do any of us give a shit that Republicans calls anyone not-republican hypocrites everyday? No. We hand wave it away and could not care less. We declare the accusation in bad faith and move on.
What Vance did removes the teeth of their major current social argument: that not conforming to ones gender/gender roles makes one a “sexual deviant.” What he did was also in the past, he’s not currently doing it (most likely). So they can easily say “he was young and stupid this isn’t hypocrisy.” But the LARGER issue is his dressing like that meant nothing at all. It represented nothing dark or wrong about him. He did it for fun and that’s ok even if he refuses to acknowledge it.
This is distinct from saying “the issue is he’s a hypocrite” and frankly I think far more impactful. Hypocrisy on its own doesn’t mean much other than you’re an inconsistent person (ignorant or on purpose), which no one honestly cares about outside of close, personal relationships.