An image of JD Vance allegedly dressed as a woman and wearing a blonde wig was posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sunday. The unconfirmed image quickly picked up steam and began trending under the hashtag #SofaLoren, a reference to the iconic Italian actress Sophia Loren and false claims that the Republican senator had sex with a couch.

ā€¦

Many commenters online connected Vanceā€™s alleged history of cross-dressing with his legislative historyā€”which has long been a point ofĀ concernĀ for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

The Ohio senator introduced the ā€œProtect Childrenā€™s Innocence Act,ā€ whichĀ aims to criminalizeĀ medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors.

The Republican vice presidential pick also supports measures to limit classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and labeled critics of so-called ā€œdonā€™t say gayā€ legislationĀ ā€œgroomers.ā€

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    Ā·
    3 months ago

    The issue is this: hypocrisy is a very surface level complaint.

    The ā€˜rules for thee but not for meā€™ kind of hypocrisy is extremely important.

    • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      Ā·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Dude come on the whole point is to who? No one gives a shit! The issue is his dressing like that does not matter regardless of his position or that of the GOP. That photo is only significant because his party acts like itā€™s indicative of someone being a pedophile. We need non-weird people to see that. Thatā€™s the significance. I know you know what Iā€™m saying.

      Yes itā€™s hypocritical. You keep acting like Iā€™m saying itā€™s not hypocritical, thatā€™s not what Iā€™m saying. Iā€™m saying that is not whatā€™s important here. Calling out hypocrisy in political campaigns is masturbatory, itā€™s to rile up people who already agree with you. The issue is how drag has been weaponized needlessly. Call attention to that.

      Edit: forget it this is pointless clearly. Truly expected people on lemmy to see the issue here but clearly this thread is not the place where Iā€™ll find those people.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        Ā·
        3 months ago

        I think thereā€™s just a disagreement with your core premise.

        There is a subset of people that are not engaged and unaware of Vanceā€™s legislative history or public statements regarding drag. Those people will generally not engage with long thoughtful nuanced discourse. Those are the people that pointing out hypocrisy speaks to. An article or long post just doesnā€™t work. A quick meme does. Itā€™s a simple cognitive shortcut to get them engaged, and itā€™s effective. Yes, I get a bit of masturbatory joy when I see that stuff, but it shouldnā€™t be meant for me. This stuff is meant to go ā€œviralā€ so it gets in front of the non-engaged eyeballs.

        We need to use every single goddamn tool in the toolbox we have to engage people and get them to turn out. All of it. Including pointing out hypocrisy.

        • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          Ā·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Everyone is aware of the GQPā€™s obsession with drag queens/trans folks/bathrooms/etc. You can attack this obsession with this photo.

          Also itā€™s not drag, which half this thread is calling the image.

          • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            Ā·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Fair enough on the terminology.

            Everyone is aware of the GQPā€™s obsession with drag queens/trans folks/bathrooms/etc. You can attack this obsession with this photo.

            So attacking their obsession is okay, but taking it one step further and explaining that theyā€™re not only obsessed but hypocritical somehow makes it out of bounds?

            I am truly trying to understand your point, and I think others have too, but it simply isnā€™t there. Can you just specifically say what you would like to see written when communicating this information to someone? What specifically do you want said about JD Vance when someone posts this photo? I think that might help.

            • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              Ā·
              3 months ago

              I never described it as out of bounds that is wildly mischaracterizing what I said. Move on dude weā€™re just not going to see eye to eye.

              • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                Ā·
                3 months ago

                It was a question, trying to understand what the hell youā€™re trying to say. Donā€™t really think itā€™s fair to call that ā€œwildly mischaracterizedā€ but you do you.

                Happy to move on. You should really work on communicating your thoughts though. Youā€™re not making any sense and wasting a bunch of peopleā€™s time who are trying to engage with you in good faith, and then getting combative when itā€™s pointed out. We canā€™t see eye to eye while youā€™re facing the other direction.