Jump to content
Apple Music
lgbt

Study shows that European gay men increasingly vote far-right extremists

Featured Posts

Deagan

So everyone that votes economically right is a racist, ignorant, privileged white gay?

Pfft. There exists a progressive and libertarian right as well. 

Anyhow, if I look at how gay people are being bashed in Amsterdam and Rotterdam nowadays, it makes sense.

  • Like 4

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc

Don't really see this in the Netherlands. Gays are usually centre-left to centrist here. Even the animal party (8%) is about as popular as the far-right (10%) amongst gays actually (https://ioresearch.nl/Home/Nieuws/democratie-in-doelgroepen-1#.XFmSCzm0udM). I mean, sure, most gays are critical of Islam and see how it's the biggest source of homophobia in western Europe right now in the big cities where most of us live, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for a far-right party. Left-wing parties are critical enough about homophobia and religion in my perception, and polarisation amongst religions will only lead to more problems.

  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALGAYDO

Some gay men (many in this very site) value their personal wealth and their racism more than they value the wellbeing of other LGBTQ individuals. It's gross, but what can we do besides call them out for their BS and hope they'll stop being selfish and ignorant one day?

Gummy Bear ➡️ NOT Marinara ➡️ HOMODRAKE ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Like 4
  • Sad 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
kupo
2 minutes ago, Deagan said:

So everyone that votes economically right is a racist, ignorant, privileged white gay?

Pfft. There exists a progressive and libertarian right as well. 

Anyhow, if I look at how gay people are being bashed in Amsterdam and Rotterdam nowadays, it makes sense.

This is admittedly a philosophically murky question. But to the disenfranchised and vulnerable communities that rightwing causes do damage to, the answer doesn't really matter much. 

Maybe lots of Americans who voted for Trump weren't racist "in their hearts." But their vote for Trump still functionally served to benefit and further racist policies and ideologies. And to the people who are threatened by those policies, that concrete support with concrete consequence is what matters, not someone's intentions.

 

 

As for those brazenly admitting to voting for far-right parties--and I say this without judgment and as a genuine attempt to be a good-faith actor in this discussion: please, please, please re-evaluate. You are doing damage to the most vulnerable communities out there. You are helping empower dangerous people. And while a lot of queerfolk may feel somewhat insulated from harm in these movements, as most contempo far-right groups are currently focusing more on anti-poc, anti-immigrant, and anti-Islamic rhetoric, please know that you will not be spared. Your number will come up eventually. History shows us this. At the VERY BEST, you will be used as an exploitable resource for them, and abandoned when you are no longer useful. At worst, the target moves to you.

If you are angry with the system, you have right to be: it is fundamentally failing all but the wealthiest among us. Many politicians ARE out of touch, completely insulated by their own socioeconomic privilege, unable to see or understand the problems most people face in their day-to-day life. But the answer is not to support people who aim to remake society in a way that it helps just as few as it currently does. Which is precisely what far-right movements aim to do. They have very narrow in-groups, and their aim is to claw that group to the top of the hierarchy forevermore.

There is a better answer: smash the ****ing hierarchy. I'm not so foolish as to think some sort of perfect utopia is ever going to be achieved, but there is enough capital and resources in the world that we can make society work for a VERY BROAD cross-section of people. That should be our aim.





 

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
River
2 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Well there are X times more of these than immigrants so if it was the other way around it would REALLY mean that homophobic attacks happens way f*cking more among immigrants.

True in most places haha but it strongly depends where they live tho!

The homophobia being stronger among immigrants than among the "100% pure blooded french" guys is not a myth. It doesn't concern all of them obviously and you find homophobes among folks of french descant as well of course but its not a myth.

I'm not denying that it exist, it happened to us when we walked holding hands on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice and 2 immigrant screamed slurs at us but I still remember the rallies of 2013 and 2016 in Paris against gay marriage and our local gay bar Bitch/Butch was getting some sh-t sometimes from young French guys (the owner used to punch them in the face on Drag lol).

So like homophobia didn't come with the immigrant, it was always there in a big numbers, it's just the immigrant are in the spotlight now.

I'm not serious 99% of the times ;)

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guillaume Hamon
On 2/5/2019 at 4:30 PM, River said:

I'm not denying that it exist, it happened to us when we walked holding hands on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice and 2 immigrant screamed slurs at us but I still remember the rallies of 2013 and 2016 in Paris against gay marriage and our local gay bar Bitch/Butch was getting some sh-t sometimes from young French guys (the owner used to punch them in the face on Drag lol).

So like homophobia didn't come with the immigrant, it was always there in a big numbers, it's just the immigrant are in the spotlight now.

I'm not for violence but he was right to defend himself when it was needed lol! Doing it in drag must be more complex since it's rarely worn for combat lol so kudos to him! :D

Of course it "didn't come with them" and of course there are already homophobic french folks since forever but I believe that it's not the question that create the doubt here... Many folks ask themselves "are they significantly more homophobic than the average french guy therefore representing a risk to make homophobic agressions/ behaviors pop in the country?" and many believe they are.

We talk about people coming from several countries where a big ( sometimes a huge) majority consider that gays deserve jail time or death penalty for being gay according to polls made there.  Would you have similar results with these polls done in Europe asking most of the folks living there? I highly doubt you would, except potentially for a few eastern european countries out of the 28 and I'm not even sure.

It's not being hateful to want to protect ourselves so of course no one believe stopping immigration from certain countries would mean stopping homophobia but it's hard to believe that, on the long term, it wouldn't help fighting it. 

Edited by Guillaume Hamon
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guillaume Hamon
21 hours ago, Luc said:

I mean, sure, most gays are critical of Islam and see how it's the biggest source of homophobia in western Europe right now in the big cities where most of us live, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for a far-right party. Left-wing parties are critical enough about homophobia and religion in my perception, and polarisation amongst religions will only lead to more problems.

This survey shows it's rising with french gays among other european gay populations and France is the country were saying it's "the biggest source of homophobia" the way you do is already deemed a very racist statement whatever it's factual or not and even if it doesn't put the blame on every muslim. Maybe that's because of this taboo that some gay people don't feel free to to express what they see around them and ended up voting for the extreme.

You're lucky if the left parties of your country dare to be critical with that. Here it would be pretty much bashed or at least condemned by all medias. In France the left must be terrified of that bashing and/ or that it could come across as a blame of all muslims so they say nothing cause they won't lose neither the muslim vote or the vote of non-muslims thinking it's unfair to see it as the biggest source of homophobia because of the media treatment.

Opening discussions, as long as it's respectful, could help a long way to not have people seing extreme parties as the last option to address an issue.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy McQueen

Reminds me of Ernst Röhm, Alice Weidel, David Berger, Dave Rubin or Milo Yiannopoulos. Why are people soooo goddamn dumb?!

  • Sad 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
calmar
3 minutes ago, Andy McQueen said:

Reminds me of Ernst Röhm, Alice Weidel, David Berger, Dave Rubin or Milo Yiannopoulos. Why are people soooo goddamn dumb?!

The average IQ is 100. Half are dumber than that.

俺の勝利は揺るぎない

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deagan
On 2/5/2019 at 3:13 PM, kupo said:

But to the disenfranchised and vulnerable communities that rightwing causes do damage to, the answer doesn't really matter much. 

You stereotype rightwing as American rightwing. US has left or right.
Our liberal (or progressive) right - VVD here in NL - is economically the most right. Yet people are talking about other parties being Trump equivalents, even though any more rightwing party would be for strict immigration laws.
Here, social liberties such as gay rights and anti-discrimination laws, go very well together with economic right.
The only hard "provable" damage you might find economic right do to minorities is to the poor and uneducated.

@Luc what a very biased cherrypicking you are doing. 
14% does not know, 13% votes VVD, 10% votes PVV. And these are some of the largest groups.
Not to mention that this new party FvD has been attracting a shitload of attention and is in the polls the third largest party now.

See here is the thing. centrists and democrats (D66 here) would be a perfect party for a center atheist like myself. Yet, with their climate change plans - even though the US won't participate, nor will Russia, China, and Turkey in the end (PCA is not binding) - we will end up paying bigtime taxmoney for a neglectable impact. In addition to this, they forced students into a student loan debt system (which is where i'm more left). Those ideas make me wander from party to party. And religion is (IMO) a disease of the world. That does not make me a racist, but an atheist. I don't believe middle-eastern islam is gay-friendly. But at the same time I would ban a bible or close all churches :).

Edited by Deagan

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc
8 hours ago, Deagan said:

You stereotype rightwing as American rightwing. US has left or right.
Our liberal (or progressive) right - VVD here in NL - is economically the most right. Yet people are talking about other parties being Trump equivalents, even though any more rightwing party would be for strict immigration laws.
Here, social liberties such as gay rights and anti-discrimination laws, go very well together with economic right.
The only hard "provable" damage you might find economic right do to minorities is to the poor and uneducated.

@Luc what a very biased cherrypicking you are doing. 
14% does not know, 13% votes VVD, 10% votes PVV. And these are some of the largest groups.
Not to mention that this new party FvD has been attracting a shitload of attention and is in the polls the third largest party now.

See here is the thing. centrists and democrats (D66 here) would be a perfect party for a center atheist like myself. Yet, with their climate change plans - even though the US won't participate, nor will Russia, China, and Turkey in the end (PCA is not binding) - we will end up paying bigtime taxmoney for a neglectable impact. In addition to this, they forced students into a student loan debt system (which is where i'm more left). Those ideas make me wander from party to party. And religion is (IMO) a disease of the world. That does not make me a racist, but an atheist. I don't believe middle-eastern islam is gay-friendly. But at the same time I would ban a bible or close all churches :).

How is it cherry-picking? :huh: the VVD and especially PVV aren't that big amongst gays here when comparing it to straight people.

 

And as for climate change, even though it's unrelated, the Netherlands is already behind pretty much every other European country. Your excuse that we shouldn't do more than other countries would be valid if we did. But we don't. We're not Sweden or even Belgium. We're the Netherlands. Our government hasn't done **** about climate change so far, and now they're finally getting closer to an actual policy, they're all suddenly getting election koudwatervrees. So far it's only been setting goals, but doing absolutely nothing to reach them.

Schermafbeelding-2016-11-04-om-5.53.22-P

170518-Figuur3-3-3.jpg

s-winning-europe-s-renewable-energy-race

 

 

And let's not act like reducing CO2 emissions is such a dread to the economy. Sweden's economy has grown much more the past 10 years than the Dutch economy, maybe (just maybe) because they're not stuck in the same centre-right neo-liberal D66-VVD economic policy.

Edited by Luc

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deagan
3 hours ago, Luc said:

How is it cherry-picking? :huh: the VVD and especially PVV aren't that big amongst gays here when comparing it to straight people.

 

And as for climate change, even though it's unrelated, the Netherlands is already behind pretty much every other European country. Your excuse that we shouldn't do more than other countries would be valid if we did. But we don't. We're not Sweden or even Belgium. We're the Netherlands. Our government hasn't done **** about climate change so far, and now they're finally getting closer to an actual policy, they're all suddenly getting election koudwatervrees. So far it's only been setting goals, but doing absolutely nothing to reach them.

Schermafbeelding-2016-11-04-om-5.53.22-P

170518-Figuur3-3-3.jpg

s-winning-europe-s-renewable-energy-race

 

 

And let's not act like reducing CO2 emissions is such a dread to the economy. Sweden's economy has grown much more the past 10 years than the Dutch economy, maybe (just maybe) because they're not stuck in the same centre-right neo-liberal D66-VVD economic policy.

It is cherry picking because you make it seem like only 10% of the gays vote right here. Which is not true at all. They don't differ from straights much at all. 13% + 10% + 14% "I don't know" = maybe scared to share. Plus it's dated. Lots has changed over the last 3 years.

About your climate change statements... we import a lot of electricity, and nuclear energy is not always considered green even though it should be regarding CO2 emissions.

Your claims about CO2 reduction not leading to economic impact is simply partisan. Sweden has sources of green energy the NL does not (water). Plus they are considerably smaller. Comparing the economic values (GDP, unemployment), the NL is winning from Sweden by far https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/sweden.
Plus, who was talking about just the EU? If China produces an economical fart, our billions investment is completely reduced to a waste of money. They estimate simply the renovation of houses to cost 140B. One needs to consider that turkey, russia, and china, as well as the US, are actually expected to grow in their gas need and CO2 emission. My point: build those (new) nuclear power plants (preferably thorium) and have affordable CO2 friendly energy like France has. Invest all the windmills and solar energy money in education instead, reduce healthcare costs, and science will lead the way.

"The reason for Sweden’s low emission rate is that about 80 per cent of electricity production in Sweden comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Sweden currently has three nuclear plants with eight nuclear reactors in commercial operation, but nuclear power remains a topic that divides political parties in Sweden."
https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/

So why don't we build a nuclear power plant as a replacement for coal plants, but instead pump billions into windmills and solar? That, to me, is a bad investment. We can't do hydro power, wind and solar are not efficient enough (plus the chemical waste from solar panels - nuclear power plant equality?), plus our worldwide CO2 footprint is neglectable. People don't realise that a meat tax, kilometer tax, CO2 tax is harmful to business. In Sweden, hydro is feasible and there's no need for these.

"Your excuse that we shouldn't do more than other countries would be valid if we did."

The opposite. It's a very good thing that we don't, at least not in the way it is being imposed now. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc
6 hours ago, Deagan said:

It is cherry picking because you make it seem like only 10% of the gays vote right here. Which is not true at all. They don't differ from straights much at all. 13% + 10% + 14% "I don't know" = maybe scared to share. Plus it's dated. Lots has changed over the last 3 years.

About your climate change statements... we import a lot of electricity, and nuclear energy is not always considered green even though it should be regarding CO2 emissions.

Your claims about CO2 reduction not leading to economic impact is simply partisan. Sweden has sources of green energy the NL does not (water). Plus they are considerably smaller. Comparing the economic values (GDP, unemployment), the NL is winning from Sweden by far https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/sweden.
Plus, who was talking about just the EU? If China produces an economical fart, our billions investment is completely reduced to a waste of money. They estimate simply the renovation of houses to cost 140B. One needs to consider that turkey, russia, and china, as well as the US, are actually expected to grow in their gas need and CO2 emission. My point: build those (new) nuclear power plants (preferably thorium) and have affordable CO2 friendly energy like France has. Invest all the windmills and solar energy money in education instead, reduce healthcare costs, and science will lead the way.

"The reason for Sweden’s low emission rate is that about 80 per cent of electricity production in Sweden comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Sweden currently has three nuclear plants with eight nuclear reactors in commercial operation, but nuclear power remains a topic that divides political parties in Sweden."
https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/

So why don't we build a nuclear power plant as a replacement for coal plants, but instead pump billions into windmills and solar? That, to me, is a bad investment. We can't do hydro power, wind and solar are not efficient enough (plus the chemical waste from solar panels - nuclear power plant equality?), plus our worldwide CO2 footprint is neglectable. People don't realise that a meat tax, kilometer tax, CO2 tax is harmful to business. In Sweden, hydro is feasible and there's no need for these.

"Your excuse that we shouldn't do more than other countries would be valid if we did."

The opposite. It's a very good thing that we don't, at least not in the way it is being imposed now. 

Besides the fact that you forgot to mention that there's 24 other countries above the Netherlands on the list besides Sweden (including countries with a high population density, like Belgium) who do better, you also forgot to mention that Sweden has a carbon tax, a congestion tax (in Stockholm and Göteburg) and a kilometer tax. Sweden does have nuclear facilities (which I don't oppose by the way), most of them built some time ago. The problem in the Netherlands is that they're simply much more expensive than, for example, wind energy. One nuclear plant takes at least 10 years to build and costs at least 10 billion euros to build (and more to maintain). No Dutch energy company wants to build a nuclear facility. We live in a country where energy is privatized, yet no company wants to do anything with nuclear energy. The reason is simple: because it's not cost-effective at all. I don't refute that in the long term nuclear energy is desirable as a stable base for less windy/sunny moments, but saying it's an easy solution for all problems comes across as very populist. Thorium energy plants don't even exist yet and research has already been going on since the 1950s, so saying thorium's the solution is just a bad excuse to do nothing. It's the best solution for in the long, long future, sure, but even if they manage to make thorium work in the next 5 years (which would be a miracle), it would take tens of years to actually build here. Not quick enough for the 2030 clean energy goals, let alone 2020.

 

And for the on-topic part. This whole thread is based on information from old polls. If we're using those for information, we can use a poll from only 2 years ago. FvD mostly stole votes from VVD and PVV, so it's not like many gays are suddenly going to vote for right-wing parties. You just have to admit that when compared to the rest of the population, gays are more likely to vote for leftist and progressive parties here. As for the 'don't knows', there's just as many of them among straight people in this poll (16%) as among gays (14%), so that part makes no sense. Combined, GL-PvdD-PvdA-D66 make up for 43% among gay people and 29% among straight people, while right-wing parties (PVV-FvD-VNL-CDA-SGP-VVD) make up for only 29% among gay people compared to 37% among straight people. This shows pretty well that gays in the Netherlands don't lean towards the right, they lean towards the progressive left, just like in pretty much every country in the world.

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deagan
3 hours ago, Luc said:

Besides the fact that you forgot to mention that there's 24 other countries above the Netherlands on the list besides Sweden (including countries with a high population density, like Belgium) who do better, you also forgot to mention that Sweden has a carbon tax, a congestion tax (in Stockholm and Göteburg) and a kilometer tax. Sweden does have nuclear facilities (which I don't oppose by the way), most of them built some time ago. The problem in the Netherlands is that they're simply much more expensive than, for example, wind energy. One nuclear plant takes at least 10 years to build and costs at least 10 billion euros to build (and more to maintain). No Dutch energy company wants to build a nuclear facility. We live in a country where energy is privatized, yet no company wants to do anything with nuclear energy. The reason is simple: because it's not cost-effective at all. I don't refute that in the long term nuclear energy is desirable as a stable base for less windy/sunny moments, but saying it's an easy solution for all problems comes across as very populist. Thorium energy plants don't even exist yet and research has already been going on since the 1950s, so saying thorium's the solution is just a bad excuse to do nothing. It's the best solution for in the long, long future, sure, but even if they manage to make thorium work in the next 5 years (which would be a miracle), it would take tens of years to actually build here. Not quick enough for the 2030 clean energy goals, let alone 2020.

 

And for the on-topic part. This whole thread is based on information from old polls. If we're using those for information, we can use a poll from only 2 years ago. FvD mostly stole votes from VVD and PVV, so it's not like many gays are suddenly going to vote for right-wing parties. You just have to admit that when compared to the rest of the population, gays are more likely to vote for leftist and progressive parties here. As for the 'don't knows', there's just as many of them among straight people in this poll (16%) as among gays (14%), so that part makes no sense. Combined, GL-PvdD-PvdA-D66 make up for 43% among gay people and 29% among straight people, while right-wing parties (PVV-FvD-VNL-CDA-SGP-VVD) make up for only 29% among gay people compared to 37% among straight people. This shows pretty well that gays in the Netherlands don't lean towards the right, they lean towards the progressive left, just like in pretty much every country in the world.

Ah you think these windmills and solar parks are going to be built over the course of 1 year? Funny. 10 years is fast.
Stating that nuclear power is not cost effective is hilarious. It is the highest return on investment actually. 10B is nothing compared... and you're still stuck in EU. Show me a CO2 emission worldwide table and we'll talk "Global Climate Accord" - legally binding for all participating countries.

But they are barely more likely. 14% GL, 18% D66 (is D66 a left party?). Yes it does make sense. "Don't knows" are probably people who don't want to share. If they are almost the same over str8 and gays, where does this idea of yours come from that gays are any differently represented in our politics? The thread is about a recent trend. I think that trend is true. An increasing number of gays will vote immigration phobically. Btw, VNL doesn't even exist.
"Gays haven't been majorily right-wing voters" - sure - but an increasing number will be. Just like how an increasing number of people voted for the PVV (being our second largest party for now). You're going to deny that more gays voted for PVV than they did a decade ago? Really? Please consider that there were even "gays for Trump". The phobia of gays for other cultures and religions is obviously increasing to me. Laughing it away by stating that a majority still did not vote right 2 years ago, is just silly. 

Edited by Deagan

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...