#Christian Conservative Privilege

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andra Watkins at For Such A Time As This (02.07.2025):

Yesterday, the administration released a new executive order that would create a “faith office” within the White House and direct the Attorney General to eradicate so-called “anti-Christian bias” from the federal government. This move is straight out of Project 2025, but it is also part of the authoritarian playbook followed by Putin and Orbán. Rather than rehash this order, I want to help readers grasp what this crowd means when they say phrases like “anti-Christian bias,” “Christian persecution,” and “religious liberty.” Because what they mean will matter for YOU and your loved ones.

Anti-religious bias

‘Live and let live’ is antithetical to Christian Nationalists; they believe everyone in society should be forced to follow Christian Nationalist laws. Any law that differs from their interpretation of the Bible contains so-called “anti-religious bias.” For example, CNs believe homosexuality is a mortal sin, a depraved choice. They do not believe God created anyone with a same-sex attraction. Therefore, forcing them to accept homosexual people and behavior when they are certain it is wrong is “anti-religious bias,” ie: laws that violate their perceived religious liberty to discriminate against people and behaviors they believe to be wrong. They don’t think they should have to hire, work with, shop with, or otherwise see or experience homosexuality in any aspect of daily life. How this interpretation of anti-religious bias could impact YOU:

Christian Nationalists believe the natural role of women is 1. get married to a man; 2. submit to said man; 3. have as many babies as God gives her; and 4. stay home and take care of them. Any laws that allow or support women working outside the home contain “anti-religious bias.”

Many Christian Nationalists believe ALL CONTRACEPTION causes abortions. Therefore, laws that allow more access to contraception or keep contraception legal contain “anti-religious bias.”

Project 2025 aimed to revoke the right to same-sex marriage, because recognizing same-sex couples nationwide is “anti-religious bias.”

Christian Nationalists insist that God created 2 sexes: male and female. Therefore, every human must be categorized according to God’s purported plan. Any law or regulation that acknowledges the existence of transgender, non-binary, or intersex people is therefore “anti-religious.”

Readers who have specific questions about how this definition could impact them or someone they care about can drop questions in the comments.

Christian persecution

Many Americans may hear comments about a Christian nation and think, “Why would that be so bad? What could it hurt to live by the Christian moral code? Wouldn’t that make us more safe and secure?” This thinking is especially prevalent among congregations that are Christian but not Christian Nationalist. Which is why it is critical for Americans to understand what Christian Nationalists mean when they throw around a phrase like “Christian persecution.” For Christian Nationalists, Christian persecution is anything that tries to stop them from forcing everyone in society to live by Christian Nationalist laws.

Some examples:

This newsletter is Christian persecution.

Calling Project 2025 a Christo-fascist manifesto is Christian persecution.

Confronting a group of pious theocrats from a pulpit, as Bishop Budde did so eloquently, is Christian persecution.

Disagreeing with them about the interpretation of the Bible (or basically any spiritual thing they assert) is Christian persecution.

Telling them no is Christian persecution.

Forcing them to be in the vicinity of anything that offends them is Christian persecution.

Recognizing other faiths and giving them equal treatment is Christian persecution.

The existence of atheists and other secular beliefs is Christian persecution.

I hope everyone can see what’s happening here: Christian Nationalists believe they have the right to use Christianity to persecute everyone else, and whenever someone resists, they cry, “I’m a victim of Christian persecution!” It’s very basic projection.

Andra Watkins wrote in her For Such A Time As This Substack explaining the phrase “anti-Christian bias” and the Trump executive order that is supposedly designed to combat “anti-[conservative] Christian bias.”

[shutinthenutouse]

Having a small percentage of African blood in you doesn't change your white privilege. I have 1% and I still have white privilege whether I want it or not.

[justaboymadeofhoneyandglass]

Yeah absolutely agree baby

Lust is evil and a sin until someone is asexual and then not lusting after anyone is a sin because being queer is evil… You would think christians would look at asexuality as being holy or some shit. But noooo, bigotry disguised as religious belief is never that fucking simple is it…

[golem-brigadier]

Jews: We are not white.

Liberals: We don't really view them as white.

Conservatives/Right-wingers: We prefer that they convert to Christianity or they will burn in hell (and likely still burn after conversion). And we don't really trust them even after conversion, but yeah, we don't think them as white either.

Far-Righties, Neo-Nazis, and White Supremacists: Not only are they not white, but we don't even consider human. They're cold-blooded goblins who should all be killed. And those look white are the most evil ones for hiding among pure people like us.

Leftists/Progressives: Jews are white, and not only that, they're the most privileged ones. They have far more wealth per capita than other races and have far more people is statistically impossible. And even if people said they ain't white, they're White-lite™ and are white supremacists. Also, I going to bring in Israel for some reason and said you weaponizing antisemitism.

[leikeliscomet]

"Ace women have it easier than ace men because everyone thinks women are pure and men are predatory" when Black women are sexualised and Asian men are desexualised, "aroallos are privileged because they can just have sex like allo people" when gay sex bans and serophobia are alive and well, "alloaces have privilege because romance is always seen as pure and sex is always seen as bad" when gay marriage is still illegal in most parts and gay romance books are being burned, "aroaces have privilege because they have the most visibility and representation" when the aroace visibility and representation in question is harassment from TERFs and fascist Youtubers, 'asexuals have privilege over demis, greys and sex favourable aces and sex repulsed aces are the most privileged because they're seen as really asexual" when the emotionless asexual trope exists, when most sex repulsed characters are literal villains and when the go-to stance of every anti-asexual TERF, radfem, conservative and Christian puritan is that having no sex or sexual attraction at all can't exist in humans or ever should, is what happens when you have no substantial asexual or aromantic politic, remove the nuance of romance and sex as if they aren't effected by various factors, base your 'activism' on interpersonal moments over any systemic analysis and act like asexuality and aromanticism exist in a magical place unaffected by the rest of the world.

Just garlic bread and vibes, truly.

[jewish-sideblog]

There’s a simple reason, of course, why we’re seeing so many otherwise privileged Queer atheists and anti-theists engaging in ideological evangelical conservatism. It’s because they were only ever interested in shaking off the aspects of Christian hegemony and white supremacy that negatively impacted them.

Western society is rapidly becoming far more accepting of Queer people and atheists, and the only real pushback against that acceptance is coming from conservative Christian communities. So what do you do to maximize your social standing as an otherwise privileged Queer person? You cut ties with conservative Christianity, but only expel from your own worldview what is personally hateful to you. Cut out the homophobia, but continue to otherwise profit from a Christian society based on a Christian culture that perpetuates Christian moral structures, practices, and values.

The reason we see so many Queer culturally Christian atheists fail to deconstruct Christian world views is because they’re actively benefiting from the structures of Christian privilege. They’ve already exorcised the parts of the ideology that were harming them. Why would they want to destroy the social structures that nearly perfectly reward them?

Antisemitism, purity politics, moral superiority and righteousness all actively improve their standing in society. They aren’t going away any time soon, they just needed to be rebranded in order to incur maximum effectiveness for themselves.

[thereallyreallylatebird]

From some of the discourse I've seen, I've gotten the impression that some people think intersectionality is like math. Let me explain.

Some people think of certain identities as universally giving privilege (we'll say these have a value of +1) and some as universally taking privileged/causing discrimination/bigotry/etc. (we'll say these have a value of -1).

And what I've seen is that people will add these values and decide how hard someone has it based on the value of the product.

For example: A white (+1) Christian (+1) gay (-1) man (+1) would have a score of 2, since 1+1-1+1 is 2. (Keep in mind I'm not saying people literally do this sort of math, though I have actually seen charts that do, it's more of a way of illustrating a way of thinking I've seen.)

The problem with this, of course, is that this isn't how the world works at all. Depending on where he lived and his situation in general, that white Christian gay man could be bullied severely, called slurs, or even beaten and killed--all things you wouldn't expect going off a score of 2--because intersectionality is not like math. And because, in some places, this man's gayness would overshadow all his other identities.

Also, this mathy way of looking at things fails to consider how identities interact with each other. For instance, (and this is something several of my mutuals, but especially @dysphoria-things, have discussed in the past) a trans man's identity as a man does *not* serve to "cancel out" his being trans in the eyes of society. First, many won't even view him as a man. Second, even if he is viewed as a man by a certain group, he still may be subject to less explicit forms of transphobia. Not to mention the expectation many hold that he perform his man-ness in order for them to keep seeing him as a man. There's a lot more to unpack here specifically, but the previously mentioned mutual has already done many many posts on this, and is more qualified to speak on this than I am as a cis person, so I suggest you go check that blog out if you want to hear more on this topic.

Another example would be one of *my* identity intersections. That of being aromantic and allosexual. Now, being allosexual (not asexual) is not a minority identity. However, it by no means "cancels-out" my aromanticism. In fact, the specific combination of this majority identity (allosexuality) with my aromanticism actually leads to some seriously nasty assumptions and stereotypes. Because what do you think goes through the majority of people's (especially conservative's) heads when they hear "Oh I'm attracted to people sexually, but not romantically." Nothing flattering.

Point is, intersectionality is not like math. Having a majority identity does not necessarily mean that identity will always be rewarded (especially depending on the combination with a minority identity), and also this way of thinking is one thing that can start people down the "oppression-olympics/who has it worst" route, which is helpful and productive to exactly no one. The world is complicated, society is complicated, and people are complicated. And anything boiled down this much is usually inaccurate enough to be useless or actively harmful. Thank you for coming to my TED-talk.

[germiyahu]

There's such an intricate interplay between antisemitism and islamophobia from the slacktivist left. For every reason they can think of to delegitimize the Jewish People's connection to Eretz Yisrael, it's propped up by some Noble Savage presumptions about Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims.

Since Jews in America are seen as a model minority, seen as having accessed whiteness and privilege, and "antisemitism" is at worst having to explain what Hanukah is to clueless Christians, the Left is confused as to exactly why Jews care about Jerusalem and the Land of Israel so much. Shouldn't they be above such petty and barbaric and outdated concerns such as a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago?

They should be more enlightened than that. They're all rich suburban secular Democrats. They're the leftist religion, according to bloggers on this very platform. There is no room for Judaism to be a religion, there's no acknowledgment of ancient customs, rituals, and the deep mysticism that's still alive and well in the Jewish community. There's no attempt to understand Jewish history and culture and why a group of people you think shares your vaguely atheistic vaguely liberal (and not in the Tankie sense) vaguely smug detached Western worldview... is more complex and unique than that.

Jews should be happy living in Diaspora because clearly the problem of antisemitism is fixed now, and never really was a problem in America. There must be something sinister behind a desire to reestablish a country by and for Jews. There must be something colonial, oppressive, European and White about it. Because why else would they do it? They have it good here. And no we won't acknowledge where Israelis primarily descend from because that requires us to do research and have a shred of nuance and integrity when it comes to Jews. No thanks!

A lot of the modern left is nonconsensually dragging Jews kicking and screaming from their own unique demographic toward the banal Norm. To themselves. But not totally. See they think they relate to Jews and vice versa, but not enough that when they think Jews should "know better," or haven't "learned their lesson," from the Holocaust, it engenders a deep seeded disgust and mistrust and rage that's not felt for actually privileged mainstream dominant society.

Conversely, the slacktivist Left sees Arabs as savages. Silly desert people who eat sand and worship a big black cube and cover every inch of their bodies for some reason. How quaint! When the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim cause explains that Jerusalem is important to them, the White Western Leftist nods sagely and says "Your culture is so valid queen," because they don't care. They just accept that Muslim society would be willing to fight over an ancient city proscribed as holy in dusty old tomes. Because that fits the narrative already surrounding Muslims.

They're seen as backwards, but the Left, reacting to their conservative parents and the Bush era, see "Muslims are backwards," and says not "No actually they're modern groups of people with practical geopolitical goals," but instead "Yeah and that makes them better than us!" Especially with this new crop of baby Leftists who think Islamo-Fascist "Feudalism" or whatever the best term would be, is aspirational or at least harmless... because it's not capitalism :)

So Muslims are infantilized and condescended to because the Western Leftist is still just as racist as their parents, but they feel guilty about their parents without considering their contribution to White Supremacy and the Post Bush surveillance state. And all the while Jews are reprimanded and held to an impossible standard because the Western Leftist, again, rejects their conservative parents' philosemitism, and decides that Jews Must be Punished when they step off the pedestal that Suffering the Shoah placed them on.

Jews should be above nationalism, Jews should know that demurely suffering pogroms and ethnic cleansing and genocide and general inequity and humiliation will earn them their divine reward in the end. Muslims should not be above nationalism, because they're not capable of being above it, and can't we throw them a bone, after all Obama was the worst president in history because of the Drone War and let's not mention George W Bush at all :0

Hot take, but I believe this is an essential underpinning of where the average disaffected White millennial/zoomer Leftist's head is at with regard to Israel and Palestine. They won't acknowledge it of course, but I can generally see through things like this.

[molsno]

I think that tme people have heard a lot of things about terfs that give them a false impression of who can be a terf. yes, most terfs are heterosexual. but there are bisexual and lesbian terfs. yes, terfs are racist. but there are still terfs who are poc. yes, terfs are antisemitic. but there are still jewish terfs. yes, terfs are intersexist. but there are still intersex terfs. yes, terfs are ableist. but there are still disabled terfs. yes, terfs are transphobic. but there are still nonbinary and transmasc terfs. if you're not transfem, and especially if you were afab, terfs will happily accept you into their "sisterhood".

like, if you think I'm being harsh here, you need to understand that for trans women, we have to see them all. you might think that because you're [insert marginalized identity], you couldn't possibly be a terf. but I can guarantee you I've been personally harassed by a terf who shares that exact same identity, and a lot of trans women can say the same. are they less common than the stereotypical cishet white christian perisex able-bodied women that you imagine all terfs to be? absolutely, but they still exist. and it doesn't particularly matter if they don't check all those boxes, because at the end of the day, they're still calling me a male-socialized rapist who will never be a woman and telling me to kill myself! it doesn't matter to them that the movement they're a part of harms people like them - people like you - because they hate people like me more.

it would be nice if we could all pretend that terfs are this tiny group of ultra-privileged conservative women but when you're transfem it becomes so glaringly obvious that that's nothing more than an illusion. terfs are a fairly large hate group, one that includes people from any background you can imagine, excluding transfems. if it bothers you to be reminded that there are terfs who share the same background as you, then do something about it. they're everywhere - they could be your family, your friends, your co-workers, your classmates. start advocating for trans women, especially the ones who also share the same background as you, and shield them from transmisogyny. learn to actually recognize transmisogyny and nip it in the bud when people start spouting off terf talking points - it's better not to let them become terfs at all. you're not helping any trans women when you plug your ears and pretend that people just like you can't possibly be violent transmisogynists.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

The Opening Ceremonies of the 2024 Paris Olympics began with some overheated faux outrage about the Bacchanalia performance by drag queens, especially by among Evangelical Christians, Conservative Catholics, and right-wingers. Thomas Jolly, the man responsible for directing the opening ceremony, speaks out on the Dionysus display, via PinkNews (07.29.2024). [...]

The right-wing faux outrage campaign against the Bacchanalia performance at the 2024 Paris Olympics is all about fomenting anti-drag and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments. These are the same people who holler up and down about the “persecution” of Christians-- in the process trivializing actual instances of Christian persecution-- if even the slightest thing goes against their worldview. I was once an Evangelical Christian (and a liberal one at that), but left for the United Church of Christ in 2013, so I know first-hand the effects of the persecution fetish aspect of the Evangelical culture and how it drives politics and theology. These folks believe in a dangerous canard that “you can’t be a Christian and a Democrat.”

My latest post in Substack talks about the Bacchanalia display at the opening ceremonies of the 2024 Olympics that has caused pearl-clutching fake outrage from right-wingers, especially Evangelical Christians and Conservative Catholics.

The right-wing faux outrage campaign against the Bacchanalia performance at the 2024 Paris Olympics is all about fomenting anti-drag and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments. These are the same people who holler up and down about the “persecution” of Christians-- in the process trivializing actual instances of Christian persecution-- if even the slightest thing goes against their worldview.

Read the full post on The JGibson Report Substack.

[tanthesuperman]

Sorry I’m entering my rage era but

I hate when the most privileged straight white Christian conservatives post “how you treat people who vote differently than you matters” and what they mean is “I don’t like when someone points out that I don’t listen to facts, don’t have critical thinking skills, and don’t care about anyone unlike me”

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Conservatives: these priests/pastors/conservative politicians would NEVER do something so sexually deviant as to sexually abuse a child; it's these homosexuals and muslims and immigrants and bleeding heart liberal politicians who do that! People of bad moral character, men who don't know how to be men! *ahem*...*passes/upholds law allowing children to be married to adults with parental consent* *high official age of consent, but let him off because she must have tempted him* *moves pedo priest to new district*

Liberals: these drag queens/trans women/whistle-blowers/BDSM practitioners/liberal politicians would NEVER do something so terrible as to sexually abuse a child; it's those Christian priests and pastors, those small-town mayors, those billionaire CEOs, those hypocritical conservative politicians who do that! People with privilege and standing, people who have repressed their urges and expressed them in a bad way! *ahem*...*something something we can't ban child marriage because cultural relativity* *child sex workers* *lower age of consent for sexual freedom* *expunge criminal records for transwomen*

Like do you see how you're all the fucking same on this issue? That your reasoning is the exact same? Look to your own or shut the fuck up and let feminists handle this.

[sergle]

Every time YouTube nonsense happens I'm always like "I can't wait to see what Sergle says about this" because you're the only person I follow that talks about YouTube nonsense.

Please take this is an invitation for you to talk about the Watcher's apology video lol

I am a filthy youtube enjoyer so you can absolutely count on me and GODDDDDDDDDDD... I mean the apology is not NEARLY as funny as the blunder, so it hasn't kept my attention as much but like the obligatory upfront thing is that, like, it is good that they posted it, they apologized for being insensitive and whatever, they're not scraping their channel clean or going forward with their old plan to only post their shows on their own platform, and these are technically good and correct things, because they could have pretended not to notice all the negative feedback. So like, responding is good. BUT LIKE I HAVE QUESTIONS NOW... Because they took SO LONG to film and upload a video that basically is just "we fucked up, we're sorry, we're not gonna do that anymore", which doesn't exactly take a writer's room several days to cook, but I DIGRESS... They were quiet for long enough for everyone to LOOK REALLY CLOSE. After the initial reaction, people had time to do some pretty comprehensive cost breakdowns for their stuff, and for what they have to be pulling in from adsense, sponsored segments, patreon, merch, and touring Like, they'd need to be really mismanaging their finances, because they're doing very well for themselves, making good, stable money, and the vids they make are super duper advertiser friendly. SO... you take long enough without putting out a holder statement or a quick heel-turn apology or anything, it gives people more time to get comfortable with not liking you, and also to dig around and google things about you, or scrape up info/trivia about you to corroborate their new opinion of you. It gets personal, is what I mean. So pulling this move has still, at BEST, caused some permanent damage to their relationships with fans, in both directions. They all got a huge flood of negative feedback, and even a perfect, emotionally mature, non-entitled person would have a negative reaction to people being upset with them at such a high volume. But now they're gonna remember the things that people have said about them, and there's no way that at the very least, Steven isn't gonna feel spiteful about this. People TOTALLY unloaded on him (funny) (valid) about his evangelical christian conservative leaning tesla privileged out of touch boy gold flaked ice cream eating ways. He definitely is going to remember that ppl said they never liked him in the first place. As for Ryan and Shane, people didn't have any dirt on them, but they definitely still received a lot of angry messages from people, most of which will have been reasonable, but they're gonna remember the really really mean and intense ones. Anyway, they made a booboo dumb enough for jack to want to make a skit about it, so for that I'm very grateful, because I thought it was really really fucking funny

[pluckyredhead]

Can you please say more about the Lanterns' politics?

I am so glad you asked me about this because I've been thinking about it since I reblogged that post but also I'm definitely about to get yelled at lol. ANYWAY THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG.

Tl;dr: John is the only one with a coherent political position or an up-to-date voter registration.

Hal:

So something interesting about Hal is that his stories are often very political but his character is not. With one extremely obvious exception, he rarely talks about politics; rather, he serves as a means through which to tell political stories, usually unintentionally.

What do I mean by that? Well, for example, in the Silver Age, his love interest would occasionally be possessed by a misandrist space jewel that would force her to attack him, but always lose because women are inherently inferior to men and prefer to be subjugated by them anyway. That's the original Star Sapphire concept. It's wildly misogynistic, but it doesn't mean Hal the character is misogynistic. But it's also a very political story, even if I don't think the writer was deliberately trying to make a point so much as...being an average, thoughtlessly sexist guy living in the 60s. (Carol continues to be the subject of mindbogglingly sexist writing and art well into the 2000s. Fucking comics.)

And so you have Hal Jordan, whose love life was ruined by his girlfriend getting promoted above him and who called his best friend by a racist nickname for decades; Hal Jordan, poster boy for chest-thumping post-9/11 kneejerk patriotism; Hal Jordan, lightning rod for a certain kind of regressive bigoted fanboyism. Choosing Hal as the Lantern for a particular story over John or Kyle has come to signify something very specific, but none of that is necessarily reflective of what Hal himself believes.

So what about Hal himself? Well, when we first meet him, he's the epitome of privilege: a white, straight, cis, Christian (I know he's canonically half-Jewish now but that's only as of the past decade or so), ablebodied, upper middle class (Geoff Johns retconned him to have a working class background, but in the Silver Age, he had one uncle who was a millionaire, another who was a judge, and a successful politician brother) man with a flashy job. Privilege tends to lean Republican; even if he is from California, I suspect Hal voted for Eisenhower in 1956.

In GL/GA, the word "Republican" isn't used to my recollection, but Hal is definitely presented as...I'm going to say conservative by I mean lower-case C. He doesn't have deeply held political beliefs, but he's traditional. He doesn't question the system, because he's never had to. He resists things that challenge the way he's always understood the world works, and that's very relatable - most people do! And he will absolutely argue with Ollie, who certainly isn't always right about everything. But he's also willing to listen, and have his mind changed, and certainly reachable via appeals to compassion and fairness.

Once the "relevance" trend of the late 60s-early 70s was over, Hal's stories default back to ostensibly politically neutral, although obviously nothing is actually politically neutral. In the late 80s and early 90s he's the most unpleasant version of himself, and that has political manifestations, like when he allows John to be imprisoned in apartheid South Africa for a ridiculous and unnecessary crime Hal himself committed. It's extremely fucked up, but again, it's less because of Hal's actual opinions and more because Christopher Priest wanted to write about apartheid, even if it does make Hal look incredibly, horrifically racist.

Then jump to the mid-2000s and Green Lantern: Rebirth, and you might imagine that losing his hometown, getting possessed by a giant space bug, becoming a supervillain, dying, and becoming the embodiment of God's vengeance might have some effect on Hal's politics, but that is not what Geoff Johns is here to write. Johns is writing a Hal who teleported in from, like, 1967 - no nuance allowed. He's a summer blockbuster that walks like a man. He's a Baja Blast. He's never had a coherent political thought in his life. In his defense, he has had more and goofier concussions than any superhero I can think of and his brain is smooth like an egg. Still.

Anyway, all of this is to say that I think Hal tends to default to center right positions but can be easily coaxed over to center left. That said, he has never not once in his life had his shit together enough to vote in a single election, not even for his own brother.

Guy:

So Guy's deal is a little bit complicated because his most vocally political era was also in part due to severe and personality-altering brain damage.

When Guy was originally introduced in the 1960s, he had the pleasantly bland personality of all superheroes. Many years later, he suffered a series of major injuries, torture, and a lengthy coma, and he emerged from the coma in 1985 with the aggressive, abrasive personality he's best known for today. Justice League International took that even further, using him to parody the jingoistic, red-blooded American action hero of the 80s.

This version of Guy is a vocal fan of Ronald Reagan and despises the USSR. He's pro-war, proudly xenophobic, and treats women badly enough that it crosses the line into repeated sexual harassment, both physical and verbal. (To be fair...ish, this last also applies to Wally West and arguably a number of other men, and was always played for laughs. It was gross all around.)

Again, this is partially a manifestation of his brain damage. There's also a running gag in JLI where if he gets hit on the head, his personality changes to this cloying, timid, gentle one, sort of halfway between a child and a flamboyant gay stereotype. Hit him again and he goes back to Asshole Guy. I'm not going to pretend I don't find some of the gags funny, but it's obviously all highly problematic, and not just from a medical standpoint.

That said, I don't think we can dismiss Guy's politics or his usual personality as simply a manifestation of brain damage. We see in later flashbacks that he developed the abrasiveness as a defense mechanism from growing up in an abusive home, and as he matures through the 90s, he doesn't actually become a significantly different person, even after his Vuldarian healing factor kicks in and heals his brain. (It's a thing.) I think it's more accurate to say that the brain damage probably affected his impulse control, his filter, and arguably even his paranoia levels.

All of which is to say that as much as I would love to go "Guy's better now, so he's not a Republican!"...that dog won't hunt. I think a really good canon writer could make the case that Guy is pro-union-style working class and also a former teacher so he's at least center left, but as of now canon evidence is pretty firmly on the red side. It doesn't help that the GLC has been written as fetishistically pro-cop and pro-military since Johns got his grubby hands all over it. I will happily ignore the New 52 retcon that Guy was a cop, and you could even try to argue that he dislikes cops because his brother was a corrupt cop who became a supervillain, but I think it's much more likely that he identifies with cops as a Corps member. Although I don't think he would have any patience for killer cops. ("You were afraid for your life even though you were the only one with a weapon? Then fucking quit, coward.")

All of that said, I think Guy is similar to Hal: defaults to center right, can be talked into center left on certain issues but he's more stubborn about it. (They would also both be enraged by Jan 6 and disgusted by the current Republican party - I can't quite argue that Guy Gardner is a Democrat but Green Lanterns don't have any patience for traitors or cowards.) It's also kind of a moot point because he never knows what is happening on Earth and hasn't voted since his pre-coma days.

John:

Oh John Stewart, thank god for you.

John was introduced as an explicitly political character in an explicitly political story. The first time we see him, he's stepping in to defend Black men from a white cop, citing his own knowledge of the law to do so. He shows a much more perceptive and informed perspective on the issue's main plot (a racist senator running for president) than Hal does. Even in the little moment above, we see that he's sensitive to exactly what it means for him, a Black man, to be taking on this role.

None of this is a surprise, since we'll later learn that John's parents were civil rights activists. Not only would he not have had the privilege Hal and Guy did to assume his existence was politically neutral, he was explicitly educated about political realities and progressive advocacy from childhood. He's well-informed, he's passionate, and he's going to tell you when you are being fucking stupid.

John isn't immune from the GL cop/military...thing, although I can't blame Johns for that - it was the cartoon that made him a Marine, and the comics followed suit. But that's never outweighed his origin or his upbringing. Like, he's friends with the DCU's fictional version of Nelson Mandela.

This one is straightforward: John is a staunch progressive. He is, however, in outer space 90% of the time, so he's always at least a little bit out of date. I imagine every time he comes back to Earth he spends the first 24 hours watching the news in abject horror.

Kyle:

Kyle doesn't talk about politics a lot, but when he does, he lands pretty much where you'd expect a young California-born artist living in New York City to land: to the left. My read on Kyle is that he hasn't really thought any of his politics through, which makes sense - he's a character who is led by emotion over reason every time. He doesn't have John's carefully thought-through arguments or knowledge of the law behind him. I feel like when something political upsets him, he's more likely to splutter angrily than make a coherent argument (which: same). When he's given the time to think things through and speak from the heart, though, he can be very eloquent, like in his speech to Terry after Terry accidentally comes out to him.

It's also worth pointing out that his solo appearances were mostly in the 90s, which were prone to avoiding politics or only addressing them in a halfhearted both sides-y way like the story above.

That said, I don't think he ever actually does anything about his political opinions. He never votes in midterm or primary elections, and probably only voted in a presidential one because Alex dragged him along one time. I feel like Donna tried to do the same when they were dating and that was when Kyle realized he'd forgotten to change his voter registration from California to New York. Jennie wasn't responsible enough to Mom him into doing his civic duty, and he's been in space pretty much nonstop ever since, so...

Simon:

In that other post, I said Simon's experiences should have radicalized him, but instead he was created by Geoff Johns. Simon is a Muslim, Lebanese-American man who came of age in the post-9/11 era, and was wrongfully convicted of terrorism and waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. His reaction to this was...to put on a ski mask and wave a gun around. Like, it's been a while since I've read these issues, but aside from the "ripped from the headlines!!!" of it all, I feel like Simon's experiences largely don't inform his actions or perspective except that he's super angry (fair enough).

The thing about Simon (and Jessica) is that he hasn't been around very long, and most comics don't have characters directly expressing political opinions. It's not a coincidence that these characters are in chronological order and each write-up is shorter than the last. I can think of about three times where Kyle has ever said anything I can interpret as political, and he's been around for 30 years. Simon only has a third of that history. So while one could certainly extrapolate what Simon's opinions are likely to be, I can't think of any canon where he actually says them.

Jessica:

Jessica has even less to go on in terms of explicitly political comics. You'd think she wouldn't like guns because of what happened to her friends, but she has one of her own and doesn't seem bothered by Simon's. I'd imagine she has opinions on immigration as someone whose family is from Mexico and Honduras, but it never comes up. If I were writing for DC, I'd make both Simon and Jess leftists, but as for actual canon proof? I got nothing.

I will say that she probably avoids political discussions because anxiety, and I bet she got really good at voting by mail during her years not leaving the house. She probably votes by mail from space. Maybe John's not the only one with an up-to-date voter registration.

Kilowog:

[juju-or-anya]

Every time someone says “Eloise isn’t a real feminist at least Penelope did something” I have to laugh. They are making her out to be Lois Lane when she runs a gossip column. Her feminist action is only for her. She found a way profit of the status quo thats it. Gossip isn’t feminist just because its associated with women. Gossip is how we enforce societal expectations by publicly shaming people and reminding others they can always be shamed. The idea that Penelope is a “better” feminist than Eloise is silly. Im not saying Eloise is a perfect feminist of course she isn’t she is sheltered and had to bribe a maid to learn about sex. No one that sheltered will have fully formed feminist theory or activism. But to say Penelope is a good feminist for her individualist actions is wild.

It's essential to recognize that no woman is a perfect feminist because there is no such thing as a perfect, uniform feminism. Feminism and deconstruction are personal and unique processes that each woman undergoes at her own pace, in her own way, with the information and resources available to her. Feminism is both a social and individual construct, with many facets and branches that reflect the cultural, social, and individual diversity of the women who embrace it.

For example, a high-class, white, Christian, English woman will have a different experience of feminism than a mixed-race, Latina, lower-middle-class woman in Argentina. Each positions herself on a branch of feminism that best represents her context and experiences.

With this framework in mind, my perception of Penelope as a feminist is deeply questionable. Despite founding a lucrative business without a man's help, Penelope did so at the expense of other women, which contradicts fundamental feminist principles. She does not practice sisterhood; she views other women as competitors or tools, as seen in her perception of Marina as a rival and Madame Delacroix as a means to an end. Simply being a woman and self-sustaining does not make her a feminist, as exemplified by Margaret Thatcher. Although Thatcher broke many gender barriers by becoming the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, her conservative policies and lack of support for other women in politics were criticized for not aligning with feminist ideals.

Penelope Featherington presents herself as a woman who has defied social expectations by creating Lady Whistledown, but her practice of undermining other women to elevate herself and profit from it is inconsistent with feminist principles. By using her platform to spread gossip and undermine other women's reputations, Penelope perpetuates a culture of competition and surveillance among women instead of promoting solidarity and mutual support. This behavior is the antithesis of feminism, which seeks to empower all women and fight against the structures of oppression that divide us.

In contrast, Eloise Bridgerton cannot be directly labeled as a feminist, especially considering the historical context of 1815 when feminism as we know it did not yet exist. The first wave of feminism in the United Kingdom began between 1830 and 1840. However, as early as 1792, women like Eloise were starting to question traditional gender roles, laying the groundwork for the future feminist movement.

Eloise represents those early women who, without calling themselves feminists, began to entertain feminist ideas. If we placed Eloise in 1830, we could consider her one of the first feminists, perhaps even actively participating in protests. Eloise seeks to break out of her privileged bubble, learn about the world's realities, and advocate for minority rights, despite the limitations imposed by her time and social position. She is a young woman from a prestigious family, close to royalty, and her quest for freedom is hindered by her family's and society's expectations. Deciding to be a spinster is a radical statement in her context, a direct rejection of social norms dictating that women must marry and be compliant.

Eloise demonstrates a critical attitude towards established norms and a genuine curiosity to understand and challenge the injustices faced by women and minorities. She does not just seek her own benefit but is interested in the well-being of other women and the fight for meaningful societal change. While she cannot be categorized as a feminist in the modern sense, her questioning spirit and desire to break with oppressive traditions align her more with feminist principles than Penelope's actions.

On the other hand, Penelope shows no interest in learning about or advocating for minorities. She wants to belong to and benefit from the privileged social circle, seeking validation and acceptance from high society. To achieve this, she created Lady Whistledown, using rumors and secrets about other women to gain control and monetary gains, demonstrating a competitive and utilitarian view of women. Instead of using her influence to promote equity and support among women, Penelope chooses to manipulate and exploit other women's vulnerabilities for her own benefit.

The lack of sisterhood and the exploitation of other women to gain power and personal profit is profoundly problematic and antithetical to feminism. In her quest for validation and status, Penelope perpetuates a culture of division and distrust among women, something that feminism works hard to dismantle.

For all these reasons, it is absurd and offensive to claim that Penelope is more feminist than Eloise. Eloise, with her desire to challenge norms and learn about injustices, embodies the spirit of feminism much more than Penelope, whose behavior undermines the movement's fundamental principles. The true essence of feminism lies in solidarity, mutual support, and the collective struggle for equity and justice for all women, not in personal gain at the expense of others.

Setting aside the beautiful and very professional text I wrote, Penelope epitomizes the white, privileged woman who plays the victim and believes that because she has suffered, she has the right to make others suffer. Instead of confronting those who truly harmed her, she targets those who have done nothing to her. Her envy of the Bridgertons is so deep that she wants to be like them but also wants to hurt them. This is evident from her comment, "You're just a pretty Bridgerton," and her other remark, "At least I did something; you just talk."

Excuse me, Penelope, but at least Eloise talks to minorities as equals, not as if they were her servants.

[hero-israel]

One of the reasons for the "Left" becoming more and more like a cheerleading squad for exactly the kind of things Leftists are supposed to hate is because so much of this new coalition of young people are coming from conservative backgrounds, but not doing any real work to deradicalize themselves.

They grow up with these Puritanical ideas of sin and justice, crime and punishment, and instead of unlearning any of this they just switch the targets of their disdain. It's switching teams for them, not learning that they don't have to play the game. Most of them are soft conservatives who just want free healthcare.

And these Leftoid chud debate pervert streamers like Hasanabi are a big contributing factor to this, not the only factor, but a prominent one. He definitely puts this veneer of artificiality and commodification over the Left. American society is under a lot of stress right now, culturally and economically. Instead of the Left organically building coalitions it's mostly unorganized college kids reading Al Jazeera and Russian and Chinese propaganda and running as fast as they can away from privilege and having a toddler understanding of class consciousness. It's so pathetic and basic and it will not save us.

You cannot save a society that you don't think is worth saving. They're just practicing radical disengagement and some kind of edgy nihilism. They purport to hate America and the West and want to burn it all down but they know that will never happen which is why they're so comfortable with the cognitive dissonance. It's why they don't vote, and why organizing and demonstrating is like teeth pulling for them. Either black activists have to do all the leg work for them, or the protests have to be about tearing something down, not advocating for any positive change, right now that's Israel. Soon it will be something else.

Unironically, the pussy hat resist lib wine moms did way more with their women's marches than any of these wannabe philosopher college kids are doing with anything. Like I know for a fact a "Leftist" would read a post like that and be like "L + ratio libshit, imagine supporting the neoliberal fascist colonialist concept of due process?" like we're so beyond the pale at this point. When fascism takes over, I'm sure they'll think they're fighting back, but if the fascists learn to coopt enough phrases about climate and Palestine and healthcare, will they even notice the fascists taking over?

I've got a few friends who were raised hardcore fundie Christian, "gays will burn" creation and rapture types. They went to normal public colleges and wound up becoming very left-wing, all the left memes and slogans you can think of, fastidious in their distinctions between and protections of every conceivable marginalized group (which none of them are, on any axis). And.... you can't disagree with them about anything. Can't point out that a source is questionable or that a slogan is psychologically backfiring and producing skepticism or mockery instead of benefits. They will not hear of it, because they are still fundies. They did a binary flip from one team to another but never moderated their tactics or temperament.