Hacker News Reader

Comment by kdheiwns | Hacker News Reader

A lot of people voted on a platform of pissing off a lot of people. A lot of people are pissed. Polls on the day of the invasion indicated a lack of support; since then a lot of people have shown that they're pissed, and now that voter base is supporting the admin and these actions because they see people getting pissed.

It sounds petty and dumb. Unfortunately, that's what's happening. 44% support the invasion. [1] That's identical to the constant 40-45% support the admin has had since day one. There has been no change in support and there never will be. There's absolutely no convincing them, leaving us with the only option of figuring out how we're supposed to deal with a country where nearly half the population has a mindset no different from willing kamikaze pilots.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americ...

View on HN

Not to mention that a good proportion of those 44% are Christians who dgaf about Iranians; in fact they're probably "heathen" being visited by "God's judgements".

The religious bigotry on this site is out of control. Christians are labeled/talked about as a block. But Muslims are treated differently, and when it's Muslim thought that is interpreted as bad, we refer to Islamists not Muslims to avoid blanket labeling.

You should edit your post because it represents Christians in a way that is not true the majority are not aligned with a weird minority subset nor the views you are assigning them.

Christians are clearly a powerful voting bloc in the US and support reactionary politics by a vast margin. Many of them see these wars as fulfilling end time prophecy and you know it. Muslim opinions in the US aren't anywhere near as influential in national elections and do actually shift on material conditions (see Gaza & Harris in the Midwest). Like get real, you will never see a christian at an anti-war protest.

source - grew up in a baptist church, grandfather was a pastor

This right here is the bigotry/double standard I'm talking about that is accepted here. 'Muslims are a death cult and you know it' is not acceptable speech, but you proudly just made the same claim, only towards Christians.

The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult, and the size of a religious voting block in the USA doesn't change that fact. Again, we use language to separate moderate Muslims from minority extremist views normally referred to as Islamist here, but Christians are an end times death cult who don't protest war (pretty sure the Pope is on record as being anti-war).

I talked about how we refer to different religions with a bigoted double standard here, not Muslim/Christian voting influence. You followed with the very bigoted:

"Like get real, you will never see a Christian at an anti-war protest."

HN has a bigotry/stereotyping/double standard problem towards Christians. Bigotry against a religion as a political weapon/lashout is wrong.

I think you are misunderstanding the situation "The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult" sure maybe, but the majority of people in the "end times death cult" would loudly and proudly proclaim they are christians and represent christians. It is a failing of "real christians" to not reject and excise this.

'If <religion x> isn't awful then why aren't more of <religion x> followers in my timeline calling out <someone else>'s actions? Those people of that religion are complicit because they don't vocally enough denounce <someone else/trait I assigned them> in the way I require therefor they and <religion x> too are responsible for <random thing/person/trait I assigned>'

isn't really the 'I'm not bigoted on this' reply you might think it is. It's more just the bog standard 'this is why I am bigoted against X group' justification of bigotry.

Would it surprise you to learn I am a christian, have been my entire life? Maybe not the kind of "christian" you are/are think of though...which I guess was my point entirely. I'm more of a "respect and love thy neighbor kind of guy", than a "we should love our new christ Donald Trump, and go to war on everyone else" kind

OK. I'm not really christian (but grew up catholic) but know a lot and they are all like you. All hate Trump. All seem to hate war (but they do do fundraisers for Ukraine so I don't know if that is supporting war, it's not to me). And all work hard supporting our poor rural community. There's trump christians here too, but they don't define the religion or mean you can make blanket christian belief claims.

Condemning a religious group based on a few is bigotry. We criticize it when it happens to Muslims, but seem to support it for Christians. Demanding a group denounce other peoples actions or a trait you define to be 'inherent to them' is classic bigotry. Saying a religious group is your political enemy has never led to anything good in history. 'I think trump supporting evangelics who want to bring about armageden blah blah' could be a valid point but 'Christians are a doomsday death cult' isn't.

"80% of evangelicals voted for President-elect Donald Trump in 2024"[0]

[0] https://americancompass.org/how-the-decline-of-evangelicalis...

Fuck it you guys are right, let's endorse bigotry against religions/groups. That should work out great.

Evangelicals aren't all Christians and 80% isn't all. But fuck it, assigning traits we don't like to all members of a community? That is 100% cool for Hacker News discussions. Trash take from all of you. But I'm glad you went hard so it can't be denied.

Hacker News has a blatant bigotry problem against Christians.

> good proportion of those 44% are Christians

I was referring to the "44%" which the previous post was making a case for represent MAGA people who support Trump no matter what he does -- not Christians in general.

MAGA has a very strong Evangelical block who are rabid "Christians" (though frankly they more closely resemble the Catholic Inquisition and have very little to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ)

The source seems bad, for some reasons they added the 10% of "unsure" to "supports".

"the new survey found 56% of Americans oppose U.S. military action in Iran, while 44% support it."

But later:

"A majority -- 54% -- of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran. Another 36% approve and 10% are unsure"

36% support it.

They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall.

Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.

I missed that, but then it is still not correct to say 44% support the invasion. In a very different framework (clear plan, cooperation with iranian opposition, working exile government, transition plan ..) I also can see myself supporting military action against the religious fanatics in power in Iran. But this invasion I do not support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com