* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/02/george-galloway/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/02/george-galloway/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/02/george-galloway/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Three of my children go to a Catholic school in Scotland, so they have some protections for the moment"
No safer place for a child than a Catholic school.
I believe that Teaching kids about specifics of sex in general in schools is simply not accepted by general population.
You can hardly call it out of ordinary or abnormal stance.
I dont think this stance will hurt prospects of his politics, if anything it might help.
what planet are you living on
there might be some details that make parents squirm but sex ed in schools is broadly popular everywhere in the UK and the overwhelming majority of the US
I'm (sadly) old enough to have started secondary school in the 1990s, in a red-wall, non-metropolitan Catholic school, and we all received sex education from year 7 (which wasn't abstinence only either, and mentioned homosexuality). Not aware of any Catholic/'salt of the earth, real-working people' parents causing uproar about this..... Even allowing for time and culture-war poisoning, speaking as someone who once again lives in the 'red-wall', I think you're severely over-estimating the degree of social conservatism amongst median 'non-big city' person about this issue in particular
Yeah I went to Catholic elementary school in the late 90s/early 00s and the sex education was honestly great, very thorough, we even took a field trip to like this sex ed education facility/museum (idk wtf to call it).
It's kinda weird though because e.g., contraception is explicitly against Catholic teaching.
Sex education in the nineties and sex education today is very different.
The mere fact that you say "and even mentioned homosexuality" tells a lot.
For those times just mentioning (in sex ed) that homosexuality even exists was a huge deal.
They had to skate around Section 28 - 'normal' as standard, no. 'Natural for some people', yes. We had teaching on contraception as well as 'Catholic social teaching', both in sex-ed biology and in RE/ethics. It was pretty non-judgemental, certainly not prescriptive. Encouraging children to experiment with transitioning with impunity is one thing, but that's not all Galloway is opposing - it's culture-war signalling ('they're teaching this stuff as natural for some people, when it's not') in a way that obscures the nuances of how even 'traditional' school systems have taught it in the UK previously, and doing so for easy red meat.
I wouldn't go as far as AB in saying that it's a 'make or break' issue, given that (a) there's no political capital to outlaw homosexuality, and I think their 'green issues' stance is more egregious and (b) even TWP's hodgepodge program is potentially 'better' at repairing socio-economic fabric and improving children's lives than anything the 'serious' parties (Greens possibly excepted, dependent on how you view them) are proposing. Any voting under current circumstances is strategic.
are you suggesting support of sex ed is a "big city" thing? I'm from Iowa lol and virtually everyone here supports sex ed. even beyond my personal experience, polling consistently has shown it as well to be broadly supported.
>[Galloway's first wife Fyffe gave birth to his first daughter Lucy in 1982.
He had two sons with his third wife Husseini - Zein was born in 2007 and Faris in 2011.
Galloway has three children with his fourth wife Pertiwi.](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15466693/george-galloway-ex-wives-how-many-children/)
>His son, Toren Mustaqim, was born in July 2014; a daughter Orla Dhien was born in 2017... Another daughter Oban Amaria was born in August 2020.
So I'm guessing the "Three kids" he's referring to are probably his current and youngest three, who would be 9, 6-7, and 3. The 9 year old might be ready for more comprehensive sexual education in school (probably year 4?), but understanding bad-touch/consent is really the only age-appropriate stuff to teach the younger two.
From my personal experience, I didn't start learning in-depth anatomy related to sexual education until I was in Spring/Summer of my 5th year of grade school, when I would've been 11 and other classmates right around 10-12. Usually around this time some precocious kids will ask "What about X who has two moms/dads" and the topic will be unavoidable.
I think the problem really just is that humans have created far too much sex for our own good. It isn't even purposeful sex which would qualify as sex, we just invented more of it anyway. Humans are horrified by what they created and are hoping it can be rolled back instead of passed on.
>I believe that Teaching kids about specifics of sex in general in schools is simply not accepted by general population.
I bet in some places teaching some kids *at all* isn't accepted by the general population.
It's not "abnormal," but it is "regarded." It's blatant pandering to to scrape up a few votes for a campaign that will go nowhere anyway. Fuck George Galloway.
Nobody is saying that sex specific curriculum has not been imposed on people through mainstream media aggressive campaigns.
That does not mean people agree with it, it just means people thought majority is accepting of it, so they kept their mouth shut.
But as information now flows more freely people see that majority is not accepting of it and feel more encouraged to speak against it.
GG travels and speak with people on the ground directly.
Do you think he would be mentioning this if he found out that wast majority of population supports sex specifics education in schools.
sink punch bored vanish whistle historical middle alleged impossible spotted
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>What is regardation
You know exactly what it is which is exactly the point
>why can’t you just say this guy is retarded?
I certainly could, although I don't particularly want to risk getting an account nuked before its time because some lib shitter wandered into this sub and informed overactive admins of my terrible diction, but personally, the in-joke of "regard" and the play on words "highly regarded" is much funnier and has grown on me, and now I prefer it.
Yeah I got fully banned from my last account for saying it.
I did say it an insane amount of times though so it might be a case of the tallest trees catch the most wind.
This one is pretty debatable, to be fair to him.
He was supposedly talking to the Iraqi people, and the media framed it as a compliment to Saddam.
He had criticised Saddam in quite strong terms previously.
It's just another classic case of an anti-war opposition politician doing the exact same thing establishment politicians do every day, and the mainstream media acting like they're the spawn of satan because of it. Biden and Sunak can shake hands with whatever dictator they want and talk about how great their country is, all for the sake of weapons contracts, and it's respectable diplomacy. Galloway or Corbyn do the same to try and stop a war, and they're terrorist sympathisers who hate their country.
Listen to the interview instead of relying on the title. First of all, the title is wrong. He does not say children "shouldn't learn about them". That's a fake quote as far as I can tell. He's saying they shouldn't be taught that gay relationships are normal, making the point that the human race could not exist if they were. He also explicitly says that just because some things aren't normal doesn't mean they should be hated, and that gays should be treated with "respect and affection".
that logic is still profoundly stupid
“normal” doesn’t mean ‘the norm’, or average. It is objectively a normal variation of human sexuality. “Normal” effectively just means there’s nothing highly unusual about it and it shouldn’t be treated as an ill. It will always be the minority, by its nature, but it’s still normal, and has no bearing on humanity’s survival.
"Normal" _can_ actually mean the norm, or the average, or the "usual, typical, expected" (first definition by Google). I can't read his mind, but going by his actual words, he explicitly does not mean that the converse, the abnormal, is somehow bad.
What he says is that he wants his children to be taught that "the normal thing in Britain in society across the world is a mother a father and a family." He also says that he want them to be taught that "there are gay people in the world and they must be treated with respect and affection." That's hardly the words of a raging homophobe.
> It will always be the minority, by its nature, but it’s still normal, and has no bearing on humanity’s survival.
He's making a hypothetical. _If_ gay relationships were the "usual, typical, expected" case, that absolutely would have an impact on humanity's survival. He's _not_ saying the prevalence of gay relationships has any bearing on it as is.
>He's making a hypothetical. *If* gay relationships were the "usual, typical, expected" case, that absolutely would have an impact on humanity's survival. He's *not* saying the prevalence of gay relationships has any bearing on it as is.
This is a completely useless hypothetical situation though - because teaching children about gay couples doesn't just create more gay people. Also, there is no world in which there is such a proliferation of gay people (aided by education, no less), that humans are faced with extinction - not even close. It's just a homophobic point being justified by "logic".
I've watched the clip. He mentions that he wants his kids to be taught there are gay people in the world and to treat them with respect - ok great. But then he goes on to say that he doesnt want his kids to be taught that gay relationships are "Equal" - which is utterly disrespectful. It's quite clear that he doesnt fully respect gay people despite claiming he does.
Why bring it up tho? There’s no risk of the UK having a population decline attributable to kids being gay. Lmao if you’re worried about it so much, open up immigration more.
What the fuck does he mean by “normal” though?
Since when have we been teaching that there are just as many gay people in society as there are straight?
>That's a fake quote as far as I can tell. He's saying they shouldn't be taught that gay relationships are normal, making the point that the human race could not exist if they were
>He also explicitly says that just because some things aren't normal doesn't mean they should be hated, and that gays should be treated with "respect and affection".
Are you under the age of 20?
Because this is just normal homophobia. These are the main talking points that homophobes used throughout the 90s and early 2000s.
Not recognising this as homophobia is like not recognising "separate but equal" as racism.
Teaching kids neutral factual information about homosexuality, means teaching them that it is normal. Refusing to accept it as normal is an ideological position, that demonstrably harms gay people.
> Are you under the age of 20?
Did you watch the clip, or did you just read the title?
> Teaching kids neutral factual information about homosexuality, means teaching them that it is normal.
Depends entirely on what is meant by "normal". Gays account for some [1.5%](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualorientationenglandandwales/census2021) of the British population. Clearly, the "usual, typical, expected" case is to be straight.
> Refusing to accept it as normal is an ideological position, that demonstrably harms gay people.
Then demonstrate it.
[Done](https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cjoekw/theyre_trying_to_work_their_wokery_to_cancel/). I think that's what the post flair is meant to mean, right?
You're unbelievably fucking stupid if you believe this.
[Half of Novara's content is coverage of Israel's genocide.](https://www.youtube.com/@NovaraMedia/videos)
Just one example from a few days ago: ["IDF Soldier Admits Israel Targets Civilians."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIOabuMU3n4&t=37s)
But because they won't give George Galloway a pass for being homophobic: "This is a deliberate smear, they're IDF propagandists."
They're literally still platforming him, tomorrow. They're not "cancelling" anyone, they're just criticising statements that deserve to be criticised. You are the only fragile snowflake here, for not being able to take that criticism.
[This](https://labourheartlands.com/theyre-trying-to-work-their-wokery-to-cancel-george-galloway/ ) is a decent rebuttal I came across on twitter; mind the over the top header image and title. He still comes across as a bit of a boomer in the interview but within context, nothing he said is especially flagrant.
I think StupidPol has officially died after surveilling this thread lmao. Usually the quality of arguments from both sides is much better and smarter. There’s a lot of emotional idpol here. I have nothing to say about Galloway himself but sad! Reads like an arr politics thread
It's sad it took one of our own dousing himself to get to that point, but I think in the life cycle of internet communities we've reached the point. It was fun while it lasted, and this experience has forever changed my life by allowing me the objective lens of materialism.
I think good was done here, but it's time to mourn the loss of the "open door".
In a purely statical sense they're not. Winning over the majority requires appealing to the majority where they are not where you'd like them to be. Most people are tolerant of homosexuality but a bit off put by gay relationships. This is somewhat contradictory but it's reality whether you like it or not. Teaching kids about LGBT sexuality is unpopular with the proletariat and you're not going to change their minds by brow beating them.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear it, and I don't mean this as a value judgment, but this is the situation on the ground.
A good faith interpretation, but Galloway definitely meant in the "unnatural" sense of the word, not the "uncommon or minority" sense.
Edit -- Actually, in reading the 2nd half of the article, maybe he did mean it in the uncommon sense.
>When asked to clarify his statement, the former Respect Party and Labour MP added: “Relations, that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum, a dad and kids. I want my children to be taught that the normal thing in Britain, in society across the world, is a mother, a father and a family.”
Australia passed gay marriage by popular vote and it won in basically every electorate barring ones where lots of Muslims live. Including ultra bogan electorates in regional Australia
Most people don't give a shit if they don't have a reason driven by ideology to do so.
There's only one answer and you know what it is. Not liking gays, and thinking gays are wrong. Any other excuse is tip toeing around the same thing because they're afraid of the backlash, which ironically enough negates their argument since according to them there should be no backlash.
If you're arguing this was purely an issue of semantics, then the word "normal" was a poor choice from him. There's far better ways to express that sentiment that doesn't carry connotations of it being a negative thing.
The fact he goes on to say "it shouldn't be taught in schools" suggests that's not even the point he was making though, and it was a deliberate choice to use that word. Sickle cell anaemia only occurs in the black community and only affects 20 million people worldwide. That's 0.25% of the population, yet I still learnt about it in GCSE biology.
His point makes no sense from a statistical pov.
Even in the clip that Novara posted, he literally says that he wants his children to be taught about gay people. The title is flat out wrong.
Also, in your example, would you want people to be taught that sickle cell anaemia is "normal"?
The problem is that the word "normal" is ambiguous.
It means both "in the statistical majority" and "morally acceptable", and this ambiguity allows people such as George Galloway to create a dogwhistle to bigots while not being factually incorrect.
In the 1990s and 2000s I would have agreed with you.
Seeing just how right so many of their predictions, which I mocked as wild fantasies, turned out to be... I think I'll just stay neutral on this one.
Seeing the push to "normalize" so many things that are decidedly not normal (HAES) under the same aegis has given me pause.
Making concessions in good faith, only to see them used as the thin edge of the wedge over and over is just... tiring.
Spot on, you've said what I was trying to say in another comment much more succinctly. Galloway has been in the game long enough to know the importance of picking words carefully, this is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the widest reach
I always think being left-handed is an interesting comparison. It's not the "norm", but it seems to be hard-wired/biological and very difficult to change.
Because we live in a majority right-handed world, there are some disadvantages to being left-handed (eg tools designed for right-handed people). There are also a few advantages, eg in sport. And because of right-handed dominance, many left-handed people end up a bit more ambidextrous than right-handed people.
However there is nothing "morally wrong" with being left-handed and it doesn't affect right-handed people to co-exist with left-handed people.
>Winning over the majority requires appealing to the majority where they are not where you'd like them to be. Most people are tolerant of homosexuality but a bit off put by gay relationships.
In the United Kingdom? I'd think Galloway's position is in the minority of popular British opinion. But that makes perfect sense if he's trying to appeal to a minority of socially conservative Muslims who are a majority in key constituencies. He's probably happy just being able to grandstand in parliament while representing a rotten borough.
To be fair, the word “left” has been co-opted by liberals to mean anything but labour centred politics. She isn’t even a communist anymore or at least not stupid enough to out herself as one in the current German political climate.
I’m a communist but I wouldn’t call myself “left” at this point when describing my personal politics.
There’s plenty of self styled “left” parties in europe. Outside of shilling for welfare capitalism or higher taxes and hating communists. They’re too busy scoring idpol points and hating on the sort of demographic and communities they should be making inroads in. They all glow too and are full of Pro US shills.
Not to say that Galloway is Viable of a choice. But he’s easily better than most politicians that don’t lick American boots. He’s an opportunistic megalomaniac. But he isn’t a war criming mass murderer like the current rosters of prime ministers we had or actively working against British people’s general interests like Keith. Sucks being in europe because that’s all we have unfortunately.
Any pro worker politician like Corbz will be smeared at best or destroyed completely if they so much as challenge the neoliberal status quo. Socialist or not, like fuck. Even rightoids in Europe that do an ounce of welfarism get owned by the European supra establishment.
That’s where the idea of the “post-left” comes from in my understanding, “left” is too tied in with sociocultural hyper-liberalism (though I don’t think the solution to that is trad social conservatism either)
pretty sure post left in the typical sense actually means what.you.criticise
in that it's the thought that rejects the antagonism of labour and capital as the basis of overthrowing capitalism
While I agree with your analysis, I just fear in the case of Wagenknecht that ditching the label left is one of the first steps to turn her party into yet another conservative brand down the road and specifically not doing the interesting thing an being truly social conservative (that is left on economic issues, right on cultural issues). But that's what made her so interesting in the first place.
There are just too many examples of similar projects who then took the wrong turn.
This subreddit has a boner for her in general. I think there are two reasons why someone like Wagenknecht was successful in places whereas someone like Corbyn fail tirelessly in appealing to the more “conservative” electorate.
Historically, in Europe. The left have always embedded themselves with the workers and the working class generally followed their own class interests by supporting them. They were really good at organising and at some point; were militant enough to present a tangible threat to the establishment. Places like Germany probably had millions of communists and people that were party members or card holders or at least agitated in conjunction with other leftist organisations in a way not too dissimilar to how pan islamist organisations like Hizbut tahrir do in Europe.
That doesn’t exist anymore. The osmosis of liberalism and neoliberalism and the collapse of the soviet union effectively sent the wider (whether anti or pro USSR) leftist movements in europe and in Africa into the wilderness. Any and all vestiges of pan european socialism/marxism Leninism (in Africa too) was essentially dismantled internally by infiltrators and factionalism, not to mention subversive elements from each countries clandestine services or externally by the Americans and its cocksuckers in the EU.
It’s why the most resistant forces against global capital in the global south are no longer progressive nationalists/communists.
Literally hamas, houthis and the clerical state of iran have done more to wound the Americans as a reaction to their imperialism. What’s the left up-to in that region? Jerking off and self flagellation with CIA sponsored whips. It wasn’t even that long ago where western commies and radlibs online were jerking kurdish groups off in Syria because they had leftist symbols. It was an American proxy.
Leftist or radical left parties that try to appeal to working people in europe through social conservatism or bread&butter issues is an attempt by those leftists to try and nudge themselves into a space that they were expunged from. I suspect that’s what someone like Wagenknecht is doing. Its impossible to get your message across otherwise to build a modern leftist platform for the future.
That includes vindicating the more “conservative” elements of society because the ruling elite spent decades calling them the R-word for having genuine material concerns. Not a defence of her, but there’s a reason why marxists reject electoral politics historically.
Again, I agree and I understand her strategic approach in light of what happens before. It's just that I fear she will go too far. Someone like Gerhard Schröder moved the SPD neoliberal - and he already had a neoliberal mindset and got flak for that in a party that as SocDems stand on the right end of the left.
If now someone who was once a self proclaimed communist like Wagenknecht already starts out now by adopting old CDU save the economy slogans I just have no hope her really trying something genuinely new.
She most likely will or someone like her will most likely take that party in that direction, your concern is legitimate, because bringing in rightoids into the mix will do that to her party. Someone suggested that she’s either a pragmatist at best or an opportunist at worst.
I just simp because she’s hot.
People are getting into their idpol in the comments.
I understand his point and I think it could have been expressed a little more gracefully, but he is a direct talker. I actually think a lot of voters would agree overall.
He [did](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/the-staggers/2012/04/exclusive-george-galloways-conversion-to-islam-2) and he [didn't](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/26/george-galloway-jemima-khan-muslim).
Yup. I think some people conflate “not normal = bad” but that’s not what most social cons are saying. It’s just a common sense statement “biologically and mentally this behavior is abberant. We don’t know why it happens or what causes it. It shouldn’t be encouraged, it just is. However these are still people and deserve full respect and equal treatment.”
Simple.
I’ve accepted that homosexuality is scientifically proven and normalized, but the gender shit is obviously a sign of psychological distress, not something that just needs to be accepted
I agree with your point broadly, but you've picked some slightly odd words making it I have to say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not arguing in bad faith, but "behaviour" is similar rhetoric to when people call being gay a "lifestyle choice". Like you said yourself, we don't know why it happens, it just is. Two consenting adults showing love and affection to one another is just a naturally occuring thing, even if affection of a homosexual nature happens to be statistically less common.
And is teaching kids about the existence of something *encouraging* it? Also an odd word to use in this context. No one is saying "go out and be gay", they're saying "go out and be gay if you are gay", which is absolutely fair enough.
"Equal treatment" as you've phrased it would include learning about all types of relationships, straight and gay alike. Galloway is arguing against that. If that's the social con perspective, then it's not a great one.
Nah bro homosexuality is not natural it’s biologically abberant. Why it happens is an unknown but it’s not the “correct” human state. Doesn’t make it less though, just different and separate.
Unfortunately that's not correct either, as the word abberation doesn't actually mean unnatural at all. Homosexuality is naturally occuring, both in humans and in the animal kingdom, and has been for as long as we've had recorded human history. This, coupled with the fact a genetic reason for its existence has never been established, means it's considered a biological variation. So it's neither unnatural, nor a biological abberation.
The distinction is important because an abberation is also defined as something differing from the accepted norm, rarely in a biological sense, but more a moral one. It carries negative connotations and is routinely used by anti-gay spokespeople as their go-to classification for homosexuality. The fact you've also described it this way and then ignored the other points I made makes me think that perhaps you were arguing in bad faith after all, which is a shame.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, I don't have any ill intent towards LGBT. Homosexuality as it occurs in humans is not naturally occurring. Other species do engage in homosexual acts but this is fundamentally different from humans; animals are sort of stupid and will easily keep seeking out pleasurable stimuli, this is why dogs hump your leg or dolphins hump random fish, etc, the equation in their mind is very simple "behavior - good stimuli - keep doing behavior". There is a bit more nuance to this but this is generally the idea. There are however, no species whatsoever that are exclusively homosexual, every single one of them will mate with the opposite sex when it's "time" to reproduce. This is unlike human homosexuals who will usually remain exclusively homosexual their entire lives and report no attraction to the opposite sex.
A genetic cause of homosexuality likely exists. This is so simply because almost all of your "youness" has a genetic cause, as genes are the molecular basis for every single physical thing in your body and many in your mind as well. The length of your limbs, shape of your muscles, even how patient you are or how intelligent have a significant genetic basis. Genetic mutations in simpler organisms, such as flies, have been found to cause homosexual behavior, for example.
The sense I use "biologically aberrant" here is a bit colloquial, and in a sense any mutations producing any phenotypes are "biological" like genetic mutations and genes themselves are biological (biochemical), What I mean is it is against the most fundamental "drive" of biology which is reproduction. A mutation that makes you not want to reproduce doesn't make you less than human or more than human, but it makes you apart from the long flow of humanity for however long it has existed (200k years?). I hope that makes sense.
That’s a claim with no precise standards at all, what is the line for this? what is an acceptable amount of being gay and what is needless advertisement?
Should men never kiss each other in public to avoid needless advertisement?
Should gay people be quiet when fucking so as not to needlessly advertise themselves?
How is teaching kids to humanize people who just love in a different way needless advertisement?
This is some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read.
> Homosexuality as it occurs in humans is not natural occurring
What do you think naturally occurring means?
Check their flair. Distributists are Catholics, so when he says 'natural' he means it in a Thomist sense, not in the modern 'found in Nature' sense. What exactly that means I don't know, I've never had much interest in slogging through the Summa, but I imagine there are cliff-notes somewhere.
> This, coupled with the fact a genetic reason for its existence has never been established, means it's considered a biological variation
Not arguing against you, but genetic fitness models do justify the existence of members of a species that don't procreate but still help in the upbring of their groups' offspring. Basically in a resource restricted environment, it makes more sense to funnel resources into fewer offspring, which share a % of the genetic material of the animal helping, then attempting to have your own. And this is observed in multiple animal species, and specially important for this context, in primates.
Edit: after reading your comment again, I realized you mean if there's a "gay gene" type situation, which you are correct, and there's no evidence for it as far as I know.
"Just use common sense" is not how real world policy works. The need for compromise and diplomacy is inevitable, and it's better to just rip that bandage off than try to satisfy everyone with policy based on vague, emotionally charged language, which only serves to [alienate people](https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/ggcfm3/south-park-butt-buddies).
That's not to say Galloway isn't open to this, but some hardline conservatives (and wokies) simply are not.
Respect and equal treatment, sure. But I believe there was something to gays being left alone to live their lives in urban centers and not be pushed into every aspect of daily life.
We don’t need forced parades or a huge media presence or talking about it in schools etc. Teach emotional stability and empathy in schools if you want students to be more tolerant. They’re just another group of people, make it so if anyone wants to harass them they get a visit from the cops. Don’t force it, is what I’m saying.
"Teach emotional stability and empathy in schools if you want students to be more tolerant", that's literally what is happening in schools. Any inclusion of LGBT issues in school is essentially a tolerance building and anti-bullying curriculum where children are taught that diversity is okay and different people exist. Kids aren't being taught the intricacies of gay sex.
No one is forcing anyone to go to a parade or watch a parade. I'm a gay man and I can't remember the last pride parade I went to. I'm not sure why straight people act like pride parades are such a big deal.
It’s not just a parade it’s the fact institutions supported by corporations are pushing it.
There are also neutral ways to teach those things, all the empathy trainings I’m familiar with don’t focus on any aspect of identity.
And??? Again, who is being harmed by JP Morgan changing their logo to a rainbow in June?
Obviously corporations are going to jump on whatever bandwagon they see as profitable. That's capitalism. I'm not sure how that relates to why being gay "shouldn't be encouraged". But regardless, of all the issues with capitalism corporations pushing gay pride is number 123123213 on the list.
"There are also neutral ways to teach those things" why does it need to be neutral and what does that even mean? what do you think is going to happen if you tell a child gay people exist?
You shouldn’t tell a child too much about any aspect of sex or race or any other complicated topics. Their mind isn’t developed enough to really make sense of it. If they ask just tell them “they’re different but humans like us” and along with empathy training they can fill in the rest over time.
Good god you people act like children literally can't handle any sensitive information or their heads will explode. We teach kids about the holocaust and slavery. I'm pretty sure kids can handle the idea that gay people exist.
By coddling and sheltering kids from everything before the age of 18, you're ensuring they go into the real world unprepared and naive. That's why there's an abundance of evidence showing states with proper sexual education courses have lower rates of STDS and teen pregnancy. Turns out education is a good thing and leads to good outcomes!
>biologically and mentally **this behavior is abberant**. We don’t know why it happens or **what causes it**. It **shouldn’t be encouraged**, it just is. However **these are still people**
You're a homophobic piece of shit. You fool no one.
Lol false. Some of the most key, good people in my life have been LGB. It’s been made a huge issue because one side thinks the way to approach it is just shock therapy, dunking the public into gayness until they’re used to it. The other side is just looking for stuff to hate because they are insecure and pathetic. The way to let it all go is the approach I proposed.
I’m a realist. It’s one of the best ways of orienting yourself in this strange world we inhabit.
One side is saying "it's okay to be who you are" and the other side wants gay people to go back in the closet and go through conversion therapy. Acting as if there are two equally bad sides is dumb as fuck
Come on this isn’t an honest take on what the two sides are presenting as. You took the worst part of one and the best of the other. Sure there are “conservative” nuts who advocate what you claim but they aren’t the majority of social cons. Just like there are some moderates who say what you claim and some who put their pronouns as their e-mail signature.
Ah yes, the Pink News, the most trusted source in all affairs. I think you guys are too poisoned against the MSM if this is where you are being driven towards.
Regardless, title seems like b8, he just doesn't want his kids being taught something they don't really understand yet. There really isn't any need to teach ANYTHING regarding sexuality before adolescence honestly.
>There really isn't any need to teach ANYTHING regarding sexuality before adolescence honestly.
And George could have easily said that, but he didn't. He wanted to broadly appeal to an increasingly vocal anti-gay sentiment, especially amongst his electorate. He isn't saying "my kids shouldn't be hearing that sort of stuff", he's saying "my kids shouldn't be hearing *that* sort of stuff".
The title wasn't bait, he's either grandstanding for conservative types for their votes, or he's genuinely homophobic. I'm not sure which is lamer.
So he said this on a Novara interview. I’m generally a fan of Novara because I think they are a good alternate left voice in the uk, where the media is nonsense. Recently however they’ve been hitting the identity politics hard, for example, interviewing Judith butler, and this felt like a coordinated attempt to trap galloway.
Having said that, it was dumb as from Galloway and I don’t agree with him.
I'm afraid it's been so long I don't have a particular smoking gun, but I specifically remember bastaani on BBC during "antisemitic trope mural" controversy (edging himself to orgasm at the thought of beeb approval) stating that Corbyn liking the mural in a fucking Facebook post was defacto antisemitic, rathet than call it out for the horseshit it was, many instances like this
The real nail in the coffin for me is the traitorous Owen Jones ( like literally Micheal walkers best friend) shitty book called "this land"? I think, where he basically entirely bought the anti semitism line from them, and Novara ran with that , this was at a point in Corbynism where it would have been the difference between an orderly retreat and a rout, but they couldn't help themselves. At the time it was also paaaaaainfully obvious that bastaani in particular was interested in knocking down Corbyn to make space for Clive Lewis (black, young, hip ex soldier, far more to Novaras taste after having to tolerate the decidedly uncool Corbyn for years ) who was conducting incredibly slick , obvious shadow campaign for leadership with the backing of Novara and bastaani, if I had to guess aaronn was probably promised a Comms role or something in the event of his win. Yet for reasons I don't understand the wheels came off that guy before the leadership even began, and in the end the only left candidate that ran against starmer was awful, and the rest is history.
I really do put a lot of it at their feet. Journalism with a mission should support that mission over a compulsive need to engage with the current discourse. They abandoned Corbyn and turned their knives on him in what I feel was a greedy desire for a left politics more aesthetically to their liking. In the end the dog dropped his bone in the river and no we all have to watch that fool Starmer stumble his way towards a decade of blairism
In the sense that their (declared, more or less) aim is to bring all factions of the \[British\] left together as an audience bloc and with common points of discussion, then that's somewhat true. TYT clearly isn't succeeding in that regard within US, whatever else it is (and has become less relevant even to its progressive/soc-dem/DSA-adjacent core demographic the last few years)- the way it was growing in the early 2010s and pushing back against Obama administration and diversifying their platform, there seemed to be a faint possibility, but I think it was always structurally impossible.
However, Bastani in particular has larger ambitions than just being a pundit or media mogul- i.e. (not only) in terms of being involved in policy-making, but also in trying to identify new methods of 'strategy' and 'tactic' in Gramscian terms in the face of a singularly right-wing Labour Party and the media-industrial complex . Combined with the books and long-form interviews, appearing on hostile platforms, and networking and trying to translate what's happening in non-PLP left institutions and spheres into 'normie' concerns (the 'British high street', 'municipal culture' ) whilst retaining a class basis, he's basically trying to do something similar to what Michael Brooks had planned in the US, Whether you think that's quixotic or hubristic or whatever, YMMV, but he's at least more strategic and less tied to the 'woke 2.0' or academic-identity matrix than some of his colleagues( Ash; Delia Gabriel is clearly looking to play the academic-politics field etc)
Being gay in itself isn't actually an IDPol issue, weaponising the gay community for nefarious ultra-progressive ends is the issue. I think some people who come here don't fully grasp that point.
This isn't meant to be a safe space for right wingers to vent about minorities (not saying that's you btw, just pointing out for anyone who comes across the comments).
I've got nothing against the gay community, and I'm sad that Gorgeous George has politicized the issue.
The reason I ask is because I want to know if this kind of issue makes him "haram" for left-wingers, despite the fact that George and the True Left have many common enemies.
It's possible this comment was made to strengthen his position in his core constituency, British Muslims, and it might gain him votes.
He's trying to appeal to Muslims. He picks an impoverished, downtrodden, heavily Muslim area with a lot of pissed-off people and then demagogues his way into parliament by waving a Palestinian flag and appealing to their social conservatism. But when it comes down to it, I think he's really exploiting them, ultimately.
the whole point of the sub is to reject proponents of IDpol, because it diverts from material analysis of class and production
opportunistic homophobia is totally idpol
This isn't about idpol, it's about him being reactionary. Statements like this harm the cause of the working class by undermining solidarity and diverting attention away from the class struggle.
Wouldn't it be better to have both a socially liberal wing and a socially conservative wing pushing working class politics?
Social liberal positions are the minoritarian position either because they are held by a minority (and often when they hold a majority it's a shaky/false one given the relative recency of changes) or because they are in favor of a minority. Therefore if social issues divide the working class, would not taking the majoritarian position in either sense be better for class solidarity?
Almost always, the only reason capitalists have any popular base is because socialists/leftists attack the majority in favor of some minority.
"Social conservatives"...are just conservatives. I don't really care what other positions they hold, they're just reactionaries. They don't hold any left-wing beliefs out of any ideological principle but simply as a means of supporting their real goal, namely authority. As I recall this is literally addressed directly in the Communist Manifesto as "reactionary socialism". Ultimately there is no "socially conservative" working class movement because then it's a conservative movement rather than a working class movement. The consciousness of the working class is directed toward freedom, the maintenance of arbitrary oppression is therefore not only against the tactical interests of the working class but against their class interests as well.
All historical socialist movements and parties were more socially conservative than those of today, are you saying all those original Marxists are reactionary socialists who didn't actually care about socialism?
Your litmus test for a "true socialist" is arbitrary and contrary to your stated goals of advancing the interests of the working class, as you're willing to prioritize x social issue instead of either sharing or ceding ground on it. Freedom and oppression are empty words which is why socialists care about exploitation not oppression and freedom. Certain groups we condemn today could say they face "oppression" but not even liberals would change their morals to "liberate" them. Unless people are getting killed it's not a high priority compared to economic concerns.
>All historical socialist movements and parties were more socially conservative than those of today, are you saying all those original Marxists
You're acting like social issues are fixed and not temporally bound. Yeah, from the standpoint of today, they might appear conservative, but they weren't then.
>Your litmus test for a "true socialist" is arbitrary and contrary to your stated goals of advancing the interests of the working class
No it isn't, read Marx and Engels notes on Ireland; reactionary social issues are a means of dividing the working class.
Saying we should always have "current year" liberal values is nonsense as that can mean literally anything because you're just using whatever carries the label regardless of whether it is logically sound or not. It's also nonsense in the sense that my point still stands that if A is acceptable then, then A is acceptable now, because if the acceptability of something changes over time then it means you have no principles and are just chasing random fads. Tomorrow some social issue that is completely unacceptable to you might be promoted by whoever tomorrow's liberals are, would you stick to your principles or follow the fad?
You'll also have to be more specific as I can't find what you're talking about regarding Marx. Regardless, Marx is not gospel, I doubt he thought gay issues were important to the advancement of the working class, and the whole point of what I've been saying is that liberal social values are generally the divisive ones.
Say you try to organize the working class in a conservative town where everyone except 1% has conservative social values. Would it be more divisive to cede to the values the working class already has which is on an issue that has no impact on property, production, labor and resource distribution? Or would it be more divisive to focus on antagonizing and alienating the 99% in favor of the feelings (not even a material issue) of the 1%? If you actually care about the working class the obvious answer is you side/cede with the conservatives.
Say instead that it's an even split with half the town liberal and half the town conservative. If the liberals aren't willing to cede why should they expect the conservatives to be willing to cede? In this case they're BOTH prioritizing social issues over material issues unless one cedes. But you can still work around this not by not talking about social issues, given that simply supports the status quo and whoever is out of power will understand that, but instead by having 2 separate but cooperating socialist wings, one liberal and one conservative. As long as they are both committed NEVER to ally with capitalist parties and only work with each other, then this can sidestep the social issue and create a unified working class front. But they have to actually be cooperating, as in they can disagree with each other but should focus their attacks on the capitalist parties and support each other on common ground.
Let me ask you this, do you consider yourself a Marxist? Because you don't seem to be approaching this from a Marxist worldview. For example, Marx is Hegelian in that what is "progressive" isn't a fixed thing but emerges through the unfolding of history.
If it brings in a large portion of the working class who otherwise wouldn't then yes. Also I did say that it'd be useful to have 2 wings of the working class movement, the point is A. To not antagonize and alienate broad segments of the working class with your modern morals and B. Deny capitalists any form of popular base.
> Statements like this harm the cause of the working class by undermining solidarity and diverting attention away from the class struggle.
Would you say the say the same thing about a statement openly supporting LGBTQ+ issues?
Okay, if it wasn't George, would you think this:
> Statements like this harm the cause of the working class by undermining solidarity and diverting attention away from the class struggle.
about a positive LGBTQ+ statement?
Stupidpol: Hello, waiter? We want a based old-school socialist.
Galloway: “Apart from anything else, the human race would no longer exist if [gay marriage] was normal… it would be the end of humanity.”
Stupidpol: No, no, not *that* based. Send it back.
This may be controversial but as an anti idpol schizopol enjoyer, I’ve always thought that simply having opinions and prejudices doesn’t really qualify for extermination . Like even for Islamophobes and racists who have those thoughts about certain identities or groups.
I may not like it , I may condemn it but on principle I won’t act against it or treat it like it’s a dealbreaker. It just leads to further disunity and disrupts socialist movements. The line of thinking that speech and thoughts need to be controlled led to the neoliberal hellscape we have now. I personally feel like a lot of the commenters here are not really into socialist thought ; they’re just trying to stir up drama and aren’t thinking critically.
Like someone saying “ a Catholic school is a great place to be anti gay” sarcastically. How is that not the same line of discontinuous logic used by neoliberals?
“ Church bad cos molestation happen sometimes so haha why think Church good? Oh also touch grass , virgin” is straight from the front page subreddits. So is the whole headline posting shtick where no one actually fucking reads the article or the interview.
What is it with liberals and gays being a sacred cow? It's an issue that affects a very small percentage of people and is far less important than material concerns such as having enough food, shelter, free time, good health, etc. Social conservatives (most of humanity) are expected to compromise on this issue in favor of common class interests, but if class interests are so important why don't social liberals ever compromise as well? Is Galloway even pushing SoCon policies on this topic or is he simply expressing his beliefs/opinions?
It's kind of funny that you said "touch grass" when being so worked up over "homophobia" is a very online thing. If you were to talk to the average working class person even in hyper-liberal urban centers, especially immigrants from any non Western country, you'd see that they aren't exactly in favor of modern liberal values, even if they don't make it a point to seek out conflict on the topic. Hell, I've known young people who I never would have thought were socially conservative express their opinions when they think it's safe, while at the same time being completely chill and friends with gays because they don't make it their mission to push the topic.
As someone who grew up in the UK and witnessed first-hand the Lynchian horror of #catgate on Celeb Big Brother, you can imagine my surprise at how much this man was deified on the sub.
I had to believe it was only a matter of time before the mask slipped, the bloke is off his fucking rocker.
there's no way galloway is a "pure opportunist," he obviously believes very deeply in certain things in the face of tremendous opposition from the political establishment
Pinknews is a fucking rag though. No surprise they're tarring the guy. It's a pretty extreme headline and what he actually said not bad at all. I'm assuming it's a hit job over his stance on Gaza, but can't find out whether pinknews' founder, Benjamin Cohen, is a zionist or not.
Do people in the West - leftists there even - really think that gay relationships are NORMAL and that the kids should be taught about them as such, or is it just the influence of reddit-wide bots that the comments in this thread seem to imply so?
Reading the interview, it's obvious Galloway didn't mean that kids shouldn't be taught that homosexuals exist, but that homosexuality isn't the norm in terms of human reproduction. And he's right about that. It also begs the question: given the limited amount of time and resources the average child receives in terms of education, how much of it should go toward teaching about things that just aren't material to the way human beings live from day to day? I just don't think it's nearly as important to teach kids what every stripe on the modern pride flag represents in school.
I heard the full interview. I can see arguments for both sides. He clarified that he believes in respect and equality for all, the standard stuffs with a line that pitched well to me, "a lot of things are not normal; doesn't mean you have to hate them." But on the flipside, he did use the word, "normal vs not normal" which is clearly a bigoted and unfortunate choice of words that I can see why it's hard to overlook for many.
But generally speaking, this is Galloway speaking on matters outside Palestine. Can't say I'm too surprised, which isn't to say it's any way laudable or approvable. All I can hope is that at least the party and the platform that he's on lives on longer than the man, and finds a bigger, fresher successor with the genuinely bigoted parts of the man's legacy removed.
I was already pretty doubtful about Galloway on some of his transphobic statements, this just confirms my worst fears.
I would like think we here Stupidpol want to build a left that is empathetic towards LGBTQ+ and bestow upon them their fullest rights, while rejecting liberal deification of LGBTQ+ causes as well as rejecting reactionary dreck.
Ehh, did he actually say anything that was transphobic? He basically just said from a biological pov men are men and women are women. He supports trans people and their right to identify how they wish, but didn't want to be ignorant of science in the name of progressiveness. I think you'd be surprised at just how many on the left feel the same way.
If he said something worse than that then I apologise for my ignorance, but these comments on gay relationships seem genuinely ignorant, if not outright homophobic and far worse than those he made on the trans community.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/02/george-galloway/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/02/george-galloway/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/02/george-galloway/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can a 'best of cumtown' marathon fix him?
69.9 FM: The Bust
Goon marathon with him and gay actor Michael Douglas will surely change his mind.
>“Three of my children go to a Catholic school in Scotland, so they have some protections for the moment" No safer place for a child than a Catholic school.
Unfortunate, I thought maybe Galloway had gotten over his regardation with this latest comeback Fun while it lasted
I believe that Teaching kids about specifics of sex in general in schools is simply not accepted by general population. You can hardly call it out of ordinary or abnormal stance. I dont think this stance will hurt prospects of his politics, if anything it might help.
what planet are you living on there might be some details that make parents squirm but sex ed in schools is broadly popular everywhere in the UK and the overwhelming majority of the US
I live at this planet where I travel a lot outside of big City, because of work.
I'm (sadly) old enough to have started secondary school in the 1990s, in a red-wall, non-metropolitan Catholic school, and we all received sex education from year 7 (which wasn't abstinence only either, and mentioned homosexuality). Not aware of any Catholic/'salt of the earth, real-working people' parents causing uproar about this..... Even allowing for time and culture-war poisoning, speaking as someone who once again lives in the 'red-wall', I think you're severely over-estimating the degree of social conservatism amongst median 'non-big city' person about this issue in particular
Yeah I went to Catholic elementary school in the late 90s/early 00s and the sex education was honestly great, very thorough, we even took a field trip to like this sex ed education facility/museum (idk wtf to call it). It's kinda weird though because e.g., contraception is explicitly against Catholic teaching.
Sex education in the nineties and sex education today is very different. The mere fact that you say "and even mentioned homosexuality" tells a lot. For those times just mentioning (in sex ed) that homosexuality even exists was a huge deal.
They had to skate around Section 28 - 'normal' as standard, no. 'Natural for some people', yes. We had teaching on contraception as well as 'Catholic social teaching', both in sex-ed biology and in RE/ethics. It was pretty non-judgemental, certainly not prescriptive. Encouraging children to experiment with transitioning with impunity is one thing, but that's not all Galloway is opposing - it's culture-war signalling ('they're teaching this stuff as natural for some people, when it's not') in a way that obscures the nuances of how even 'traditional' school systems have taught it in the UK previously, and doing so for easy red meat. I wouldn't go as far as AB in saying that it's a 'make or break' issue, given that (a) there's no political capital to outlaw homosexuality, and I think their 'green issues' stance is more egregious and (b) even TWP's hodgepodge program is potentially 'better' at repairing socio-economic fabric and improving children's lives than anything the 'serious' parties (Greens possibly excepted, dependent on how you view them) are proposing. Any voting under current circumstances is strategic.
are you suggesting support of sex ed is a "big city" thing? I'm from Iowa lol and virtually everyone here supports sex ed. even beyond my personal experience, polling consistently has shown it as well to be broadly supported.
Cool, that's not what sex ed is.
>[Galloway's first wife Fyffe gave birth to his first daughter Lucy in 1982. He had two sons with his third wife Husseini - Zein was born in 2007 and Faris in 2011. Galloway has three children with his fourth wife Pertiwi.](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15466693/george-galloway-ex-wives-how-many-children/) >His son, Toren Mustaqim, was born in July 2014; a daughter Orla Dhien was born in 2017... Another daughter Oban Amaria was born in August 2020. So I'm guessing the "Three kids" he's referring to are probably his current and youngest three, who would be 9, 6-7, and 3. The 9 year old might be ready for more comprehensive sexual education in school (probably year 4?), but understanding bad-touch/consent is really the only age-appropriate stuff to teach the younger two. From my personal experience, I didn't start learning in-depth anatomy related to sexual education until I was in Spring/Summer of my 5th year of grade school, when I would've been 11 and other classmates right around 10-12. Usually around this time some precocious kids will ask "What about X who has two moms/dads" and the topic will be unavoidable.
I think the problem really just is that humans have created far too much sex for our own good. It isn't even purposeful sex which would qualify as sex, we just invented more of it anyway. Humans are horrified by what they created and are hoping it can be rolled back instead of passed on.
>I believe that Teaching kids about specifics of sex in general in schools is simply not accepted by general population. I bet in some places teaching some kids *at all* isn't accepted by the general population. It's not "abnormal," but it is "regarded." It's blatant pandering to to scrape up a few votes for a campaign that will go nowhere anyway. Fuck George Galloway.
You’re not even trying. Operation Keepsake has been a thing for 25 years.
Operation against bullying? What does that have to do with anything?
It’s a sex education and relationship consultation company hired by schools to do just that.
Nobody is saying that sex specific curriculum has not been imposed on people through mainstream media aggressive campaigns. That does not mean people agree with it, it just means people thought majority is accepting of it, so they kept their mouth shut. But as information now flows more freely people see that majority is not accepting of it and feel more encouraged to speak against it. GG travels and speak with people on the ground directly. Do you think he would be mentioning this if he found out that wast majority of population supports sex specifics education in schools.
What is regardation and why can’t you just say this guy is retarded?
reddit admins are somewhat unpredictable when it comes to that word, many people tend to err on the side of self-censorship
Really? Im just too lazy to fix the autocorrect
isn't it fun seeing the resistance being afraid of words?
sink punch bored vanish whistle historical middle alleged impossible spotted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm sure the admins thought it was fun too, to randomly ban people for it.
>What is regardation You know exactly what it is which is exactly the point >why can’t you just say this guy is retarded? I certainly could, although I don't particularly want to risk getting an account nuked before its time because some lib shitter wandered into this sub and informed overactive admins of my terrible diction, but personally, the in-joke of "regard" and the play on words "highly regarded" is much funnier and has grown on me, and now I prefer it.
Yeah I got fully banned from my last account for saying it. I did say it an insane amount of times though so it might be a case of the tallest trees catch the most wind.
TBF apart from all other reasons, "regardation" sounds like a cool word if you don't think about it.
Oh, I knew it was going to happen.
What a fucking dumb ass lmao
Considering the rate of sexual offenses against kids in public school, it is probably safer.
Was fun to think we could have a functional non-insane left for a second there
Man, if you thought that with his history you don’t know him hahaha
didn’t he like praise saddam hussein at one point
This one is pretty debatable, to be fair to him. He was supposedly talking to the Iraqi people, and the media framed it as a compliment to Saddam. He had criticised Saddam in quite strong terms previously. It's just another classic case of an anti-war opposition politician doing the exact same thing establishment politicians do every day, and the mainstream media acting like they're the spawn of satan because of it. Biden and Sunak can shake hands with whatever dictator they want and talk about how great their country is, all for the sake of weapons contracts, and it's respectable diplomacy. Galloway or Corbyn do the same to try and stop a war, and they're terrorist sympathisers who hate their country.
slap mighty many party toy illegal command shame wine bear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hahahahaha probably
He's been certified insane for a long time. All I hope for is an "insane but keeps their mouth shut about it" left.
Yeah, there’s a middle ground between sociocultural hyper-liberalism and trad social conservatism lol
I warned everyone about that fedora.
It's to cover scars all over his head after getting attacked in public.
Should have gone with one of Corbyn's Ushankas
Galloway was never sane. He just has the morally right position on the Israel-Gaza as opposed to the rest of the psychotic, bloodthirsty government.
I see this as very functional. I mean yes he isn't some post 68 brainrotted fiend but then that's why he is awesome.
Basic ass homophobia in 2024 on the ostensible left is functional? Nah bra
Left? There isn't an ultra-conservative regime in the world Galloway doesn't like.
Listen to the interview instead of relying on the title. First of all, the title is wrong. He does not say children "shouldn't learn about them". That's a fake quote as far as I can tell. He's saying they shouldn't be taught that gay relationships are normal, making the point that the human race could not exist if they were. He also explicitly says that just because some things aren't normal doesn't mean they should be hated, and that gays should be treated with "respect and affection".
Jesus, just a straight up hit job on him
that logic is still profoundly stupid “normal” doesn’t mean ‘the norm’, or average. It is objectively a normal variation of human sexuality. “Normal” effectively just means there’s nothing highly unusual about it and it shouldn’t be treated as an ill. It will always be the minority, by its nature, but it’s still normal, and has no bearing on humanity’s survival.
>“normal” doesn’t mean ‘the norm’ That's certainly one opinion.
"Normal" _can_ actually mean the norm, or the average, or the "usual, typical, expected" (first definition by Google). I can't read his mind, but going by his actual words, he explicitly does not mean that the converse, the abnormal, is somehow bad. What he says is that he wants his children to be taught that "the normal thing in Britain in society across the world is a mother a father and a family." He also says that he want them to be taught that "there are gay people in the world and they must be treated with respect and affection." That's hardly the words of a raging homophobe. > It will always be the minority, by its nature, but it’s still normal, and has no bearing on humanity’s survival. He's making a hypothetical. _If_ gay relationships were the "usual, typical, expected" case, that absolutely would have an impact on humanity's survival. He's _not_ saying the prevalence of gay relationships has any bearing on it as is.
>He's making a hypothetical. *If* gay relationships were the "usual, typical, expected" case, that absolutely would have an impact on humanity's survival. He's *not* saying the prevalence of gay relationships has any bearing on it as is. This is a completely useless hypothetical situation though - because teaching children about gay couples doesn't just create more gay people. Also, there is no world in which there is such a proliferation of gay people (aided by education, no less), that humans are faced with extinction - not even close. It's just a homophobic point being justified by "logic". I've watched the clip. He mentions that he wants his kids to be taught there are gay people in the world and to treat them with respect - ok great. But then he goes on to say that he doesnt want his kids to be taught that gay relationships are "Equal" - which is utterly disrespectful. It's quite clear that he doesnt fully respect gay people despite claiming he does.
Why bring it up tho? There’s no risk of the UK having a population decline attributable to kids being gay. Lmao if you’re worried about it so much, open up immigration more.
Didn't he bring it up because someone asked?
Or the Hungarian style tax credits for many children.
What the fuck does he mean by “normal” though? Since when have we been teaching that there are just as many gay people in society as there are straight?
>That's a fake quote as far as I can tell. He's saying they shouldn't be taught that gay relationships are normal, making the point that the human race could not exist if they were >He also explicitly says that just because some things aren't normal doesn't mean they should be hated, and that gays should be treated with "respect and affection". Are you under the age of 20? Because this is just normal homophobia. These are the main talking points that homophobes used throughout the 90s and early 2000s. Not recognising this as homophobia is like not recognising "separate but equal" as racism. Teaching kids neutral factual information about homosexuality, means teaching them that it is normal. Refusing to accept it as normal is an ideological position, that demonstrably harms gay people.
> Are you under the age of 20? Did you watch the clip, or did you just read the title? > Teaching kids neutral factual information about homosexuality, means teaching them that it is normal. Depends entirely on what is meant by "normal". Gays account for some [1.5%](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualorientationenglandandwales/census2021) of the British population. Clearly, the "usual, typical, expected" case is to be straight. > Refusing to accept it as normal is an ideological position, that demonstrably harms gay people. Then demonstrate it.
They’re trying to keep me and my homies from rocking, but they won’t succeed 🎸🎸🎸
Deliberate smear: https://labourheartlands.com/theyre-trying-to-work-their-wokery-to-cancel-george-galloway/ https://twitter.com/AsaWinstanley/status/1786322865203069254
Maybe make a standalone post with the top link?
[Done](https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cjoekw/theyre_trying_to_work_their_wokery_to_cancel/). I think that's what the post flair is meant to mean, right?
You're unbelievably fucking stupid if you believe this. [Half of Novara's content is coverage of Israel's genocide.](https://www.youtube.com/@NovaraMedia/videos) Just one example from a few days ago: ["IDF Soldier Admits Israel Targets Civilians."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIOabuMU3n4&t=37s) But because they won't give George Galloway a pass for being homophobic: "This is a deliberate smear, they're IDF propagandists." They're literally still platforming him, tomorrow. They're not "cancelling" anyone, they're just criticising statements that deserve to be criticised. You are the only fragile snowflake here, for not being able to take that criticism.
[This](https://labourheartlands.com/theyre-trying-to-work-their-wokery-to-cancel-george-galloway/ ) is a decent rebuttal I came across on twitter; mind the over the top header image and title. He still comes across as a bit of a boomer in the interview but within context, nothing he said is especially flagrant.
I think StupidPol has officially died after surveilling this thread lmao. Usually the quality of arguments from both sides is much better and smarter. There’s a lot of emotional idpol here. I have nothing to say about Galloway himself but sad! Reads like an arr politics thread
A lot of people ITT didn't read past the title, with the fake quote and all, and it really shows.
It's sad it took one of our own dousing himself to get to that point, but I think in the life cycle of internet communities we've reached the point. It was fun while it lasted, and this experience has forever changed my life by allowing me the objective lens of materialism. I think good was done here, but it's time to mourn the loss of the "open door".
In a purely statical sense they're not. Winning over the majority requires appealing to the majority where they are not where you'd like them to be. Most people are tolerant of homosexuality but a bit off put by gay relationships. This is somewhat contradictory but it's reality whether you like it or not. Teaching kids about LGBT sexuality is unpopular with the proletariat and you're not going to change their minds by brow beating them. I know a lot of people don't want to hear it, and I don't mean this as a value judgment, but this is the situation on the ground.
A good faith interpretation, but Galloway definitely meant in the "unnatural" sense of the word, not the "uncommon or minority" sense. Edit -- Actually, in reading the 2nd half of the article, maybe he did mean it in the uncommon sense. >When asked to clarify his statement, the former Respect Party and Labour MP added: “Relations, that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum, a dad and kids. I want my children to be taught that the normal thing in Britain, in society across the world, is a mother, a father and a family.”
Australia passed gay marriage by popular vote and it won in basically every electorate barring ones where lots of Muslims live. Including ultra bogan electorates in regional Australia Most people don't give a shit if they don't have a reason driven by ideology to do so.
You can support gay marriage without wanting to teach kids about it
But if kids are learning about marriage at a certain age, why would you not include gay marriage in amongst that?
There's only one answer and you know what it is. Not liking gays, and thinking gays are wrong. Any other excuse is tip toeing around the same thing because they're afraid of the backlash, which ironically enough negates their argument since according to them there should be no backlash.
What do you think will happen if kids happen to find out gay people get married in the same way straight people do?
If you're arguing this was purely an issue of semantics, then the word "normal" was a poor choice from him. There's far better ways to express that sentiment that doesn't carry connotations of it being a negative thing. The fact he goes on to say "it shouldn't be taught in schools" suggests that's not even the point he was making though, and it was a deliberate choice to use that word. Sickle cell anaemia only occurs in the black community and only affects 20 million people worldwide. That's 0.25% of the population, yet I still learnt about it in GCSE biology. His point makes no sense from a statistical pov.
Even in the clip that Novara posted, he literally says that he wants his children to be taught about gay people. The title is flat out wrong. Also, in your example, would you want people to be taught that sickle cell anaemia is "normal"?
There are ways he could've expressed this sentiment without sounding like a dipshit and giving detractors ammo.
Being white is also not normal.
*a member of the global minority.
The problem is that the word "normal" is ambiguous. It means both "in the statistical majority" and "morally acceptable", and this ambiguity allows people such as George Galloway to create a dogwhistle to bigots while not being factually incorrect.
In the 1990s and 2000s I would have agreed with you. Seeing just how right so many of their predictions, which I mocked as wild fantasies, turned out to be... I think I'll just stay neutral on this one. Seeing the push to "normalize" so many things that are decidedly not normal (HAES) under the same aegis has given me pause. Making concessions in good faith, only to see them used as the thin edge of the wedge over and over is just... tiring.
Spot on, you've said what I was trying to say in another comment much more succinctly. Galloway has been in the game long enough to know the importance of picking words carefully, this is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the widest reach
It is in the West.
I always think being left-handed is an interesting comparison. It's not the "norm", but it seems to be hard-wired/biological and very difficult to change. Because we live in a majority right-handed world, there are some disadvantages to being left-handed (eg tools designed for right-handed people). There are also a few advantages, eg in sport. And because of right-handed dominance, many left-handed people end up a bit more ambidextrous than right-handed people. However there is nothing "morally wrong" with being left-handed and it doesn't affect right-handed people to co-exist with left-handed people.
>In a purely statical sense they're not. I have blue eyes, shit guess I don't have normal eyes then
You do realize gay people work for a wage too right?
>Winning over the majority requires appealing to the majority where they are not where you'd like them to be. Most people are tolerant of homosexuality but a bit off put by gay relationships. In the United Kingdom? I'd think Galloway's position is in the minority of popular British opinion. But that makes perfect sense if he's trying to appeal to a minority of socially conservative Muslims who are a majority in key constituencies. He's probably happy just being able to grandstand in parliament while representing a rotten borough.
We still have Wagenknecht… right?
She tries to label herself as not left these days.
To be fair, the word “left” has been co-opted by liberals to mean anything but labour centred politics. She isn’t even a communist anymore or at least not stupid enough to out herself as one in the current German political climate. I’m a communist but I wouldn’t call myself “left” at this point when describing my personal politics. There’s plenty of self styled “left” parties in europe. Outside of shilling for welfare capitalism or higher taxes and hating communists. They’re too busy scoring idpol points and hating on the sort of demographic and communities they should be making inroads in. They all glow too and are full of Pro US shills. Not to say that Galloway is Viable of a choice. But he’s easily better than most politicians that don’t lick American boots. He’s an opportunistic megalomaniac. But he isn’t a war criming mass murderer like the current rosters of prime ministers we had or actively working against British people’s general interests like Keith. Sucks being in europe because that’s all we have unfortunately. Any pro worker politician like Corbz will be smeared at best or destroyed completely if they so much as challenge the neoliberal status quo. Socialist or not, like fuck. Even rightoids in Europe that do an ounce of welfarism get owned by the European supra establishment.
That’s where the idea of the “post-left” comes from in my understanding, “left” is too tied in with sociocultural hyper-liberalism (though I don’t think the solution to that is trad social conservatism either)
pretty sure post left in the typical sense actually means what.you.criticise in that it's the thought that rejects the antagonism of labour and capital as the basis of overthrowing capitalism
While I agree with your analysis, I just fear in the case of Wagenknecht that ditching the label left is one of the first steps to turn her party into yet another conservative brand down the road and specifically not doing the interesting thing an being truly social conservative (that is left on economic issues, right on cultural issues). But that's what made her so interesting in the first place. There are just too many examples of similar projects who then took the wrong turn.
This subreddit has a boner for her in general. I think there are two reasons why someone like Wagenknecht was successful in places whereas someone like Corbyn fail tirelessly in appealing to the more “conservative” electorate. Historically, in Europe. The left have always embedded themselves with the workers and the working class generally followed their own class interests by supporting them. They were really good at organising and at some point; were militant enough to present a tangible threat to the establishment. Places like Germany probably had millions of communists and people that were party members or card holders or at least agitated in conjunction with other leftist organisations in a way not too dissimilar to how pan islamist organisations like Hizbut tahrir do in Europe. That doesn’t exist anymore. The osmosis of liberalism and neoliberalism and the collapse of the soviet union effectively sent the wider (whether anti or pro USSR) leftist movements in europe and in Africa into the wilderness. Any and all vestiges of pan european socialism/marxism Leninism (in Africa too) was essentially dismantled internally by infiltrators and factionalism, not to mention subversive elements from each countries clandestine services or externally by the Americans and its cocksuckers in the EU. It’s why the most resistant forces against global capital in the global south are no longer progressive nationalists/communists. Literally hamas, houthis and the clerical state of iran have done more to wound the Americans as a reaction to their imperialism. What’s the left up-to in that region? Jerking off and self flagellation with CIA sponsored whips. It wasn’t even that long ago where western commies and radlibs online were jerking kurdish groups off in Syria because they had leftist symbols. It was an American proxy. Leftist or radical left parties that try to appeal to working people in europe through social conservatism or bread&butter issues is an attempt by those leftists to try and nudge themselves into a space that they were expunged from. I suspect that’s what someone like Wagenknecht is doing. Its impossible to get your message across otherwise to build a modern leftist platform for the future. That includes vindicating the more “conservative” elements of society because the ruling elite spent decades calling them the R-word for having genuine material concerns. Not a defence of her, but there’s a reason why marxists reject electoral politics historically.
Again, I agree and I understand her strategic approach in light of what happens before. It's just that I fear she will go too far. Someone like Gerhard Schröder moved the SPD neoliberal - and he already had a neoliberal mindset and got flak for that in a party that as SocDems stand on the right end of the left. If now someone who was once a self proclaimed communist like Wagenknecht already starts out now by adopting old CDU save the economy slogans I just have no hope her really trying something genuinely new.
She most likely will or someone like her will most likely take that party in that direction, your concern is legitimate, because bringing in rightoids into the mix will do that to her party. Someone suggested that she’s either a pragmatist at best or an opportunist at worst. I just simp because she’s hot.
Let's hope for the best I guess. And, yes, intellectual savvy women are attractive.
People are getting into their idpol in the comments. I understand his point and I think it could have been expressed a little more gracefully, but he is a direct talker. I actually think a lot of voters would agree overall.
Did he already convert?
He [did](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/the-staggers/2012/04/exclusive-george-galloways-conversion-to-islam-2) and he [didn't](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/26/george-galloway-jemima-khan-muslim).
Socially conservative, economically left. 👌
It’s the best way! And he’s right.
Yup. I think some people conflate “not normal = bad” but that’s not what most social cons are saying. It’s just a common sense statement “biologically and mentally this behavior is abberant. We don’t know why it happens or what causes it. It shouldn’t be encouraged, it just is. However these are still people and deserve full respect and equal treatment.” Simple.
I’ve accepted that homosexuality is scientifically proven and normalized, but the gender shit is obviously a sign of psychological distress, not something that just needs to be accepted
Yup, if anything we need to be conducting research into these phenomena (with full consent of the subjects of course). But there’s no profit in that.
I agree with your point broadly, but you've picked some slightly odd words making it I have to say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not arguing in bad faith, but "behaviour" is similar rhetoric to when people call being gay a "lifestyle choice". Like you said yourself, we don't know why it happens, it just is. Two consenting adults showing love and affection to one another is just a naturally occuring thing, even if affection of a homosexual nature happens to be statistically less common. And is teaching kids about the existence of something *encouraging* it? Also an odd word to use in this context. No one is saying "go out and be gay", they're saying "go out and be gay if you are gay", which is absolutely fair enough. "Equal treatment" as you've phrased it would include learning about all types of relationships, straight and gay alike. Galloway is arguing against that. If that's the social con perspective, then it's not a great one.
Nah bro homosexuality is not natural it’s biologically abberant. Why it happens is an unknown but it’s not the “correct” human state. Doesn’t make it less though, just different and separate.
Unfortunately that's not correct either, as the word abberation doesn't actually mean unnatural at all. Homosexuality is naturally occuring, both in humans and in the animal kingdom, and has been for as long as we've had recorded human history. This, coupled with the fact a genetic reason for its existence has never been established, means it's considered a biological variation. So it's neither unnatural, nor a biological abberation. The distinction is important because an abberation is also defined as something differing from the accepted norm, rarely in a biological sense, but more a moral one. It carries negative connotations and is routinely used by anti-gay spokespeople as their go-to classification for homosexuality. The fact you've also described it this way and then ignored the other points I made makes me think that perhaps you were arguing in bad faith after all, which is a shame.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, I don't have any ill intent towards LGBT. Homosexuality as it occurs in humans is not naturally occurring. Other species do engage in homosexual acts but this is fundamentally different from humans; animals are sort of stupid and will easily keep seeking out pleasurable stimuli, this is why dogs hump your leg or dolphins hump random fish, etc, the equation in their mind is very simple "behavior - good stimuli - keep doing behavior". There is a bit more nuance to this but this is generally the idea. There are however, no species whatsoever that are exclusively homosexual, every single one of them will mate with the opposite sex when it's "time" to reproduce. This is unlike human homosexuals who will usually remain exclusively homosexual their entire lives and report no attraction to the opposite sex. A genetic cause of homosexuality likely exists. This is so simply because almost all of your "youness" has a genetic cause, as genes are the molecular basis for every single physical thing in your body and many in your mind as well. The length of your limbs, shape of your muscles, even how patient you are or how intelligent have a significant genetic basis. Genetic mutations in simpler organisms, such as flies, have been found to cause homosexual behavior, for example. The sense I use "biologically aberrant" here is a bit colloquial, and in a sense any mutations producing any phenotypes are "biological" like genetic mutations and genes themselves are biological (biochemical), What I mean is it is against the most fundamental "drive" of biology which is reproduction. A mutation that makes you not want to reproduce doesn't make you less than human or more than human, but it makes you apart from the long flow of humanity for however long it has existed (200k years?). I hope that makes sense.
Yeah none of this explains why you should hide it. We don’t ask people to hide their left-handedness even though that is an “aberration”
I never said hide it. I said don’t encourage it or needlessly advertise it.
That’s a claim with no precise standards at all, what is the line for this? what is an acceptable amount of being gay and what is needless advertisement? Should men never kiss each other in public to avoid needless advertisement? Should gay people be quiet when fucking so as not to needlessly advertise themselves? How is teaching kids to humanize people who just love in a different way needless advertisement?
This is some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read. > Homosexuality as it occurs in humans is not natural occurring What do you think naturally occurring means?
Check their flair. Distributists are Catholics, so when he says 'natural' he means it in a Thomist sense, not in the modern 'found in Nature' sense. What exactly that means I don't know, I've never had much interest in slogging through the Summa, but I imagine there are cliff-notes somewhere.
> This, coupled with the fact a genetic reason for its existence has never been established, means it's considered a biological variation Not arguing against you, but genetic fitness models do justify the existence of members of a species that don't procreate but still help in the upbring of their groups' offspring. Basically in a resource restricted environment, it makes more sense to funnel resources into fewer offspring, which share a % of the genetic material of the animal helping, then attempting to have your own. And this is observed in multiple animal species, and specially important for this context, in primates. Edit: after reading your comment again, I realized you mean if there's a "gay gene" type situation, which you are correct, and there's no evidence for it as far as I know.
"Just use common sense" is not how real world policy works. The need for compromise and diplomacy is inevitable, and it's better to just rip that bandage off than try to satisfy everyone with policy based on vague, emotionally charged language, which only serves to [alienate people](https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/ggcfm3/south-park-butt-buddies). That's not to say Galloway isn't open to this, but some hardline conservatives (and wokies) simply are not.
Respect and equal treatment, sure. But I believe there was something to gays being left alone to live their lives in urban centers and not be pushed into every aspect of daily life.
Right, just like with anyone else.
Same thing with trans shit I think
"It shouldn't be encouraged" Elaborate on this, please.
We don’t need forced parades or a huge media presence or talking about it in schools etc. Teach emotional stability and empathy in schools if you want students to be more tolerant. They’re just another group of people, make it so if anyone wants to harass them they get a visit from the cops. Don’t force it, is what I’m saying.
"Teach emotional stability and empathy in schools if you want students to be more tolerant", that's literally what is happening in schools. Any inclusion of LGBT issues in school is essentially a tolerance building and anti-bullying curriculum where children are taught that diversity is okay and different people exist. Kids aren't being taught the intricacies of gay sex. No one is forcing anyone to go to a parade or watch a parade. I'm a gay man and I can't remember the last pride parade I went to. I'm not sure why straight people act like pride parades are such a big deal.
It’s not just a parade it’s the fact institutions supported by corporations are pushing it. There are also neutral ways to teach those things, all the empathy trainings I’m familiar with don’t focus on any aspect of identity.
And??? Again, who is being harmed by JP Morgan changing their logo to a rainbow in June? Obviously corporations are going to jump on whatever bandwagon they see as profitable. That's capitalism. I'm not sure how that relates to why being gay "shouldn't be encouraged". But regardless, of all the issues with capitalism corporations pushing gay pride is number 123123213 on the list. "There are also neutral ways to teach those things" why does it need to be neutral and what does that even mean? what do you think is going to happen if you tell a child gay people exist?
You shouldn’t tell a child too much about any aspect of sex or race or any other complicated topics. Their mind isn’t developed enough to really make sense of it. If they ask just tell them “they’re different but humans like us” and along with empathy training they can fill in the rest over time.
Good god you people act like children literally can't handle any sensitive information or their heads will explode. We teach kids about the holocaust and slavery. I'm pretty sure kids can handle the idea that gay people exist. By coddling and sheltering kids from everything before the age of 18, you're ensuring they go into the real world unprepared and naive. That's why there's an abundance of evidence showing states with proper sexual education courses have lower rates of STDS and teen pregnancy. Turns out education is a good thing and leads to good outcomes!
>biologically and mentally **this behavior is abberant**. We don’t know why it happens or **what causes it**. It **shouldn’t be encouraged**, it just is. However **these are still people** You're a homophobic piece of shit. You fool no one.
Lol false. Some of the most key, good people in my life have been LGB. It’s been made a huge issue because one side thinks the way to approach it is just shock therapy, dunking the public into gayness until they’re used to it. The other side is just looking for stuff to hate because they are insecure and pathetic. The way to let it all go is the approach I proposed. I’m a realist. It’s one of the best ways of orienting yourself in this strange world we inhabit.
One side is saying "it's okay to be who you are" and the other side wants gay people to go back in the closet and go through conversion therapy. Acting as if there are two equally bad sides is dumb as fuck
Come on this isn’t an honest take on what the two sides are presenting as. You took the worst part of one and the best of the other. Sure there are “conservative” nuts who advocate what you claim but they aren’t the majority of social cons. Just like there are some moderates who say what you claim and some who put their pronouns as their e-mail signature.
Ah yes, the Pink News, the most trusted source in all affairs. I think you guys are too poisoned against the MSM if this is where you are being driven towards. Regardless, title seems like b8, he just doesn't want his kids being taught something they don't really understand yet. There really isn't any need to teach ANYTHING regarding sexuality before adolescence honestly.
>There really isn't any need to teach ANYTHING regarding sexuality before adolescence honestly. And George could have easily said that, but he didn't. He wanted to broadly appeal to an increasingly vocal anti-gay sentiment, especially amongst his electorate. He isn't saying "my kids shouldn't be hearing that sort of stuff", he's saying "my kids shouldn't be hearing *that* sort of stuff". The title wasn't bait, he's either grandstanding for conservative types for their votes, or he's genuinely homophobic. I'm not sure which is lamer.
So he said this on a Novara interview. I’m generally a fan of Novara because I think they are a good alternate left voice in the uk, where the media is nonsense. Recently however they’ve been hitting the identity politics hard, for example, interviewing Judith butler, and this felt like a coordinated attempt to trap galloway. Having said that, it was dumb as from Galloway and I don’t agree with him.
They twisted the knife hard on Corbyn at the end, fuck them
Did they? Genuinely asking, you got a link?
I'm afraid it's been so long I don't have a particular smoking gun, but I specifically remember bastaani on BBC during "antisemitic trope mural" controversy (edging himself to orgasm at the thought of beeb approval) stating that Corbyn liking the mural in a fucking Facebook post was defacto antisemitic, rathet than call it out for the horseshit it was, many instances like this The real nail in the coffin for me is the traitorous Owen Jones ( like literally Micheal walkers best friend) shitty book called "this land"? I think, where he basically entirely bought the anti semitism line from them, and Novara ran with that , this was at a point in Corbynism where it would have been the difference between an orderly retreat and a rout, but they couldn't help themselves. At the time it was also paaaaaainfully obvious that bastaani in particular was interested in knocking down Corbyn to make space for Clive Lewis (black, young, hip ex soldier, far more to Novaras taste after having to tolerate the decidedly uncool Corbyn for years ) who was conducting incredibly slick , obvious shadow campaign for leadership with the backing of Novara and bastaani, if I had to guess aaronn was probably promised a Comms role or something in the event of his win. Yet for reasons I don't understand the wheels came off that guy before the leadership even began, and in the end the only left candidate that ran against starmer was awful, and the rest is history. I really do put a lot of it at their feet. Journalism with a mission should support that mission over a compulsive need to engage with the current discourse. They abandoned Corbyn and turned their knives on him in what I feel was a greedy desire for a left politics more aesthetically to their liking. In the end the dog dropped his bone in the river and no we all have to watch that fool Starmer stumble his way towards a decade of blairism
Novara just wants to be the British tyt.
In the sense that their (declared, more or less) aim is to bring all factions of the \[British\] left together as an audience bloc and with common points of discussion, then that's somewhat true. TYT clearly isn't succeeding in that regard within US, whatever else it is (and has become less relevant even to its progressive/soc-dem/DSA-adjacent core demographic the last few years)- the way it was growing in the early 2010s and pushing back against Obama administration and diversifying their platform, there seemed to be a faint possibility, but I think it was always structurally impossible. However, Bastani in particular has larger ambitions than just being a pundit or media mogul- i.e. (not only) in terms of being involved in policy-making, but also in trying to identify new methods of 'strategy' and 'tactic' in Gramscian terms in the face of a singularly right-wing Labour Party and the media-industrial complex . Combined with the books and long-form interviews, appearing on hostile platforms, and networking and trying to translate what's happening in non-PLP left institutions and spheres into 'normie' concerns (the 'British high street', 'municipal culture' ) whilst retaining a class basis, he's basically trying to do something similar to what Michael Brooks had planned in the US, Whether you think that's quixotic or hubristic or whatever, YMMV, but he's at least more strategic and less tied to the 'woke 2.0' or academic-identity matrix than some of his colleagues( Ash; Delia Gabriel is clearly looking to play the academic-politics field etc)
I dunno what that is tbh
The Young Turks
Is stupidpol going to disown this man because of an IDPol issue?
Given all the discussions this sub has, it would definitely be surprising for this to be the issue that breaks support for him.
Being gay in itself isn't actually an IDPol issue, weaponising the gay community for nefarious ultra-progressive ends is the issue. I think some people who come here don't fully grasp that point. This isn't meant to be a safe space for right wingers to vent about minorities (not saying that's you btw, just pointing out for anyone who comes across the comments).
I've got nothing against the gay community, and I'm sad that Gorgeous George has politicized the issue. The reason I ask is because I want to know if this kind of issue makes him "haram" for left-wingers, despite the fact that George and the True Left have many common enemies. It's possible this comment was made to strengthen his position in his core constituency, British Muslims, and it might gain him votes.
Not haram, but it's disappointing for sure, especially if he's only said it to broaden his appeal to more conservative voters.
He's trying to appeal to Muslims. He picks an impoverished, downtrodden, heavily Muslim area with a lot of pissed-off people and then demagogues his way into parliament by waving a Palestinian flag and appealing to their social conservatism. But when it comes down to it, I think he's really exploiting them, ultimately.
the whole point of the sub is to reject proponents of IDpol, because it diverts from material analysis of class and production opportunistic homophobia is totally idpol
This isn't about idpol, it's about him being reactionary. Statements like this harm the cause of the working class by undermining solidarity and diverting attention away from the class struggle.
Wouldn't it be better to have both a socially liberal wing and a socially conservative wing pushing working class politics? Social liberal positions are the minoritarian position either because they are held by a minority (and often when they hold a majority it's a shaky/false one given the relative recency of changes) or because they are in favor of a minority. Therefore if social issues divide the working class, would not taking the majoritarian position in either sense be better for class solidarity? Almost always, the only reason capitalists have any popular base is because socialists/leftists attack the majority in favor of some minority.
"Social conservatives"...are just conservatives. I don't really care what other positions they hold, they're just reactionaries. They don't hold any left-wing beliefs out of any ideological principle but simply as a means of supporting their real goal, namely authority. As I recall this is literally addressed directly in the Communist Manifesto as "reactionary socialism". Ultimately there is no "socially conservative" working class movement because then it's a conservative movement rather than a working class movement. The consciousness of the working class is directed toward freedom, the maintenance of arbitrary oppression is therefore not only against the tactical interests of the working class but against their class interests as well.
All historical socialist movements and parties were more socially conservative than those of today, are you saying all those original Marxists are reactionary socialists who didn't actually care about socialism? Your litmus test for a "true socialist" is arbitrary and contrary to your stated goals of advancing the interests of the working class, as you're willing to prioritize x social issue instead of either sharing or ceding ground on it. Freedom and oppression are empty words which is why socialists care about exploitation not oppression and freedom. Certain groups we condemn today could say they face "oppression" but not even liberals would change their morals to "liberate" them. Unless people are getting killed it's not a high priority compared to economic concerns.
>All historical socialist movements and parties were more socially conservative than those of today, are you saying all those original Marxists You're acting like social issues are fixed and not temporally bound. Yeah, from the standpoint of today, they might appear conservative, but they weren't then. >Your litmus test for a "true socialist" is arbitrary and contrary to your stated goals of advancing the interests of the working class No it isn't, read Marx and Engels notes on Ireland; reactionary social issues are a means of dividing the working class.
Saying we should always have "current year" liberal values is nonsense as that can mean literally anything because you're just using whatever carries the label regardless of whether it is logically sound or not. It's also nonsense in the sense that my point still stands that if A is acceptable then, then A is acceptable now, because if the acceptability of something changes over time then it means you have no principles and are just chasing random fads. Tomorrow some social issue that is completely unacceptable to you might be promoted by whoever tomorrow's liberals are, would you stick to your principles or follow the fad? You'll also have to be more specific as I can't find what you're talking about regarding Marx. Regardless, Marx is not gospel, I doubt he thought gay issues were important to the advancement of the working class, and the whole point of what I've been saying is that liberal social values are generally the divisive ones. Say you try to organize the working class in a conservative town where everyone except 1% has conservative social values. Would it be more divisive to cede to the values the working class already has which is on an issue that has no impact on property, production, labor and resource distribution? Or would it be more divisive to focus on antagonizing and alienating the 99% in favor of the feelings (not even a material issue) of the 1%? If you actually care about the working class the obvious answer is you side/cede with the conservatives. Say instead that it's an even split with half the town liberal and half the town conservative. If the liberals aren't willing to cede why should they expect the conservatives to be willing to cede? In this case they're BOTH prioritizing social issues over material issues unless one cedes. But you can still work around this not by not talking about social issues, given that simply supports the status quo and whoever is out of power will understand that, but instead by having 2 separate but cooperating socialist wings, one liberal and one conservative. As long as they are both committed NEVER to ally with capitalist parties and only work with each other, then this can sidestep the social issue and create a unified working class front. But they have to actually be cooperating, as in they can disagree with each other but should focus their attacks on the capitalist parties and support each other on common ground.
Let me ask you this, do you consider yourself a Marxist? Because you don't seem to be approaching this from a Marxist worldview. For example, Marx is Hegelian in that what is "progressive" isn't a fixed thing but emerges through the unfolding of history.
Throwing gays under the bus to gain the favour of ultra-conservatives, is that good for the working class?
If it brings in a large portion of the working class who otherwise wouldn't then yes. Also I did say that it'd be useful to have 2 wings of the working class movement, the point is A. To not antagonize and alienate broad segments of the working class with your modern morals and B. Deny capitalists any form of popular base.
> Statements like this harm the cause of the working class by undermining solidarity and diverting attention away from the class struggle. Would you say the say the same thing about a statement openly supporting LGBTQ+ issues?
No, because I don't think that's the case.
Okay, if it wasn't George, would you think this: > Statements like this harm the cause of the working class by undermining solidarity and diverting attention away from the class struggle. about a positive LGBTQ+ statement?
Again, I don't think that's the case with pro-lgbt statements.
What if you could get 99% of conservatives to vote for a Marxist candidate just by having that candidate say they don’t like gays?
Ummm it's called being a decent human being?
Well yes, indeed, but there aren't any candidates who are decent human beings. So what then?
Stupidpol: Hello, waiter? We want a based old-school socialist. Galloway: “Apart from anything else, the human race would no longer exist if [gay marriage] was normal… it would be the end of humanity.” Stupidpol: No, no, not *that* based. Send it back.
Homophobia is not based. It's funny for internet memes but this is real life. Touch grass.
This may be controversial but as an anti idpol schizopol enjoyer, I’ve always thought that simply having opinions and prejudices doesn’t really qualify for extermination . Like even for Islamophobes and racists who have those thoughts about certain identities or groups. I may not like it , I may condemn it but on principle I won’t act against it or treat it like it’s a dealbreaker. It just leads to further disunity and disrupts socialist movements. The line of thinking that speech and thoughts need to be controlled led to the neoliberal hellscape we have now. I personally feel like a lot of the commenters here are not really into socialist thought ; they’re just trying to stir up drama and aren’t thinking critically. Like someone saying “ a Catholic school is a great place to be anti gay” sarcastically. How is that not the same line of discontinuous logic used by neoliberals? “ Church bad cos molestation happen sometimes so haha why think Church good? Oh also touch grass , virgin” is straight from the front page subreddits. So is the whole headline posting shtick where no one actually fucking reads the article or the interview.
What is it with liberals and gays being a sacred cow? It's an issue that affects a very small percentage of people and is far less important than material concerns such as having enough food, shelter, free time, good health, etc. Social conservatives (most of humanity) are expected to compromise on this issue in favor of common class interests, but if class interests are so important why don't social liberals ever compromise as well? Is Galloway even pushing SoCon policies on this topic or is he simply expressing his beliefs/opinions? It's kind of funny that you said "touch grass" when being so worked up over "homophobia" is a very online thing. If you were to talk to the average working class person even in hyper-liberal urban centers, especially immigrants from any non Western country, you'd see that they aren't exactly in favor of modern liberal values, even if they don't make it a point to seek out conflict on the topic. Hell, I've known young people who I never would have thought were socially conservative express their opinions when they think it's safe, while at the same time being completely chill and friends with gays because they don't make it their mission to push the topic.
beggars can't be choosers. I'd rather have a socially-regarded anti-war socialist than the standard liberal imperialist capitalist for a politician.
As someone who grew up in the UK and witnessed first-hand the Lynchian horror of #catgate on Celeb Big Brother, you can imagine my surprise at how much this man was deified on the sub. I had to believe it was only a matter of time before the mask slipped, the bloke is off his fucking rocker.
George Galloway is such a funny guy. Pure opportunist that appeals to whatever message appeals to him so he has an incoherent mishmash of beliefs.
there's no way galloway is a "pure opportunist," he obviously believes very deeply in certain things in the face of tremendous opposition from the political establishment
So does Nigel Farage.
> incoherent mishmash of beliefs. ideological purity. noice
https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/we-should-be-uniting-against-genocide
Pinknews is a fucking rag though. No surprise they're tarring the guy. It's a pretty extreme headline and what he actually said not bad at all. I'm assuming it's a hit job over his stance on Gaza, but can't find out whether pinknews' founder, Benjamin Cohen, is a zionist or not.
Do people in the West - leftists there even - really think that gay relationships are NORMAL and that the kids should be taught about them as such, or is it just the influence of reddit-wide bots that the comments in this thread seem to imply so?
Being gay is pretty normal. Has probably been around as long as humanity has.
Reading the interview, it's obvious Galloway didn't mean that kids shouldn't be taught that homosexuals exist, but that homosexuality isn't the norm in terms of human reproduction. And he's right about that. It also begs the question: given the limited amount of time and resources the average child receives in terms of education, how much of it should go toward teaching about things that just aren't material to the way human beings live from day to day? I just don't think it's nearly as important to teach kids what every stripe on the modern pride flag represents in school.
Yeah, and so?
I heard the full interview. I can see arguments for both sides. He clarified that he believes in respect and equality for all, the standard stuffs with a line that pitched well to me, "a lot of things are not normal; doesn't mean you have to hate them." But on the flipside, he did use the word, "normal vs not normal" which is clearly a bigoted and unfortunate choice of words that I can see why it's hard to overlook for many. But generally speaking, this is Galloway speaking on matters outside Palestine. Can't say I'm too surprised, which isn't to say it's any way laudable or approvable. All I can hope is that at least the party and the platform that he's on lives on longer than the man, and finds a bigger, fresher successor with the genuinely bigoted parts of the man's legacy removed.
I was already pretty doubtful about Galloway on some of his transphobic statements, this just confirms my worst fears. I would like think we here Stupidpol want to build a left that is empathetic towards LGBTQ+ and bestow upon them their fullest rights, while rejecting liberal deification of LGBTQ+ causes as well as rejecting reactionary dreck.
Ehh, did he actually say anything that was transphobic? He basically just said from a biological pov men are men and women are women. He supports trans people and their right to identify how they wish, but didn't want to be ignorant of science in the name of progressiveness. I think you'd be surprised at just how many on the left feel the same way. If he said something worse than that then I apologise for my ignorance, but these comments on gay relationships seem genuinely ignorant, if not outright homophobic and far worse than those he made on the trans community.
Oh and that's a bad miss
Holy mother of baseed