MAGA Indians Went All in on Trump. Many Right-Wingers Can't Stand Them(wired.com)
wired.com
MAGA Indians Went All in on Trump. Many Right-Wingers Can't Stand Them
https://www.wired.com/story/maga-indians-went-all-in-on-trump/
27 comments
https://archive.ph/nh3T1
... Okay, come on, what the hell did they expect? I have limited sympathy with "oh, no, the obvious racists I lay down with turn out to be really racist", tbh.
> At a Mississippi Turning Point event in October, Vance fielded a question about his wife's Hindu faith by saying, “I believe in the Christian Gospel, and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way.”
Bloody hell.
> At a Mississippi Turning Point event in October, Vance fielded a question about his wife's Hindu faith by saying, “I believe in the Christian Gospel, and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way.”
Bloody hell.
After last weeks kerfuffle I told myself I not to get involved in politics threads on HN but this is right up my alley.
Your response illustrates the dilemma. Yes there is a problem with race on the right but the left don’t even understand the problem. Look at your example. We believe faith matters. It is perfectly understandable that a committed Christian would want his wife to share his religion. A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his. (Well, he probably wouldn’t marry one in the first place. Is that racist?)
Your response illustrates the dilemma. Yes there is a problem with race on the right but the left don’t even understand the problem. Look at your example. We believe faith matters. It is perfectly understandable that a committed Christian would want his wife to share his religion. A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his. (Well, he probably wouldn’t marry one in the first place. Is that racist?)
> We believe faith matters.
No, that's the problem: you don't. If you did, you'd be appalled that JD was so callous in wanting Usha to abandon her faith. What you really mean is that you believe faith matters when it's the right sort of faith held by the right sort of person, and when that's the case you use it as justification for ignoring basic human decency.
No, that's the problem: you don't. If you did, you'd be appalled that JD was so callous in wanting Usha to abandon her faith. What you really mean is that you believe faith matters when it's the right sort of faith held by the right sort of person, and when that's the case you use it as justification for ignoring basic human decency.
Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.
I have noticed that for all their vaunted “empathy” leftists have great difficulty in understanding what motivates other people. Read Jonathan Haidt, he has a lot to say about it.
I have noticed that for all their vaunted “empathy” leftists have great difficulty in understanding what motivates other people. Read Jonathan Haidt, he has a lot to say about it.
> Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.
Why do you single out Christians by saying "that's what Christians do" when you already stated "A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his"?
The disagreement we're having here fundamentally is that you want to portray this as an argument about how liberals "don't even understand" faith, but the content of your argument treats faith as nothing more than an excuse for the husband to dominate the wife. When a Christian husband disrespects his wife's Hindu faith, you support the husband. When a hypothetical Hindu husband disrespects his hypothetical Christian wife's faith, you support the husband. What's the determining factor? Spoiler alert: It's not faith.
So please, just be honest about the reason you really support JD, about the real thing liberals "don't even understand": that women should be subservient to their husbands.
Why do you single out Christians by saying "that's what Christians do" when you already stated "A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his"?
The disagreement we're having here fundamentally is that you want to portray this as an argument about how liberals "don't even understand" faith, but the content of your argument treats faith as nothing more than an excuse for the husband to dominate the wife. When a Christian husband disrespects his wife's Hindu faith, you support the husband. When a hypothetical Hindu husband disrespects his hypothetical Christian wife's faith, you support the husband. What's the determining factor? Spoiler alert: It's not faith.
So please, just be honest about the reason you really support JD, about the real thing liberals "don't even understand": that women should be subservient to their husbands.
I single out Christians BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING J D VANCE. You keep talking about faith in the abstract but no one believe in Faith, they believe in specific faiths. Remember the story that started this thread was about how MAGA Indian-Americans are purportedly having second thoughts about it. Of all the things Vance could do to contribute to that feeling, this is not one of them.
Now traditional Hindus are unabashedly patriarchal; we don’t even try and pretend but if you think that’s what’s happening here you really don’t understand. (And let me again point out understanding != endorsement.)
A major difference in viewpoint is between those who believe the fundamental moral unit is the individual versus the family (or tribe or nation depending on context.) The labels left and right don’t really fit; let’s say universalist and particularist. Vance and I both believe that our faith is true and better than any other therefore it is important that our families who we love more than anyone else share that true belief. Vance also has the universalist belief that _everyone_ should share his faith whereas I do not but as far as spouses are concerned we are in agreement.
The only unusual thing about this is typically it’s the other way around. The husband is blasé about religion and it’s the wife who is more devout, drives family church attendance etc. Take one of my neighbors for instance. She is almost a parody of a Jewish liberal; there are few universalist causes she doesn’t support except when it comes to Judaism. Her husband is of Jewish descent but raised as an atheist in the Soviet Union. He goes along with all her observances even though he doesn’t afaik care personally because “it’s good for the kids.” Is he “subservient”? Is he being “dominated”? That would be a very jaundiced way of looking at it.
Now traditional Hindus are unabashedly patriarchal; we don’t even try and pretend but if you think that’s what’s happening here you really don’t understand. (And let me again point out understanding != endorsement.)
A major difference in viewpoint is between those who believe the fundamental moral unit is the individual versus the family (or tribe or nation depending on context.) The labels left and right don’t really fit; let’s say universalist and particularist. Vance and I both believe that our faith is true and better than any other therefore it is important that our families who we love more than anyone else share that true belief. Vance also has the universalist belief that _everyone_ should share his faith whereas I do not but as far as spouses are concerned we are in agreement.
The only unusual thing about this is typically it’s the other way around. The husband is blasé about religion and it’s the wife who is more devout, drives family church attendance etc. Take one of my neighbors for instance. She is almost a parody of a Jewish liberal; there are few universalist causes she doesn’t support except when it comes to Judaism. Her husband is of Jewish descent but raised as an atheist in the Soviet Union. He goes along with all her observances even though he doesn’t afaik care personally because “it’s good for the kids.” Is he “subservient”? Is he being “dominated”? That would be a very jaundiced way of looking at it.
Wanting to be with someone of a similar or same religion is not racist.
Choosing to be with someone of a different religion and/or culture, and then expecting them to assimilate to your culture, IS racist. You don't have to do that.
Choosing to be with someone of a different religion and/or culture, and then expecting them to assimilate to your culture, IS racist. You don't have to do that.
Are you married?
>We believe faith matters.
Faith matters but it's not a deciding factor on who to marry? Then I don't think faith matters that much.
Faith matters but it's not a deciding factor on who to marry? Then I don't think faith matters that much.
I’m now in the awkward position of trying to explain Christianity which I don’t know how well I’m doing but here goes. The emphasis in American Evangelical theology is on a personal conversion experience which can occur at any moment in life. So the present condition of a person doesn’t matter as long as there is the possibility of being “born again”.
Now Vance is Catholic but he is a convert who grew up Protestant (and his recent spat with the Pope suggests it might not have entirely rubbed off.)
For me it absolutely was a deciding matter.
Now Vance is Catholic but he is a convert who grew up Protestant (and his recent spat with the Pope suggests it might not have entirely rubbed off.)
For me it absolutely was a deciding matter.
(I’m the one who originally exclaimed disbelief/horror at his attitude)
I’d missed that he used to be a Protestant; I’m guessing one of the weirder American varieties. I’m not religious, but from a traditionally Catholic country, and I suppose culturally Catholic (my grandparents were Catholic). Most of my experience with Christians would be Catholics and Anglicans.
It _is_, I think, a fairly un-Catholic attitude (certainly post-Vatican II Catholic, which he would have to be, having been born after it), but maybe it fits better with evangelical Protestantism? That said, it’s surprising to me that someone who holds such views would marry someone of another religion; you’d think that either they’d respect the spouse’s beliefs, or find them a barrier.
The middle ground of “I can marry this person, but also _they should convert_” is pretty odd to me.
(I mean, honestly in this case I’m kind of assuming that it’s performative for his audience, and that he didn’t hold any such views when they got married, and probably still doesn’t. Because you’d be a fool to take this guy at his word. But if it’s _real_, yeah, sorry, that’s pretty fucked up)
I’d missed that he used to be a Protestant; I’m guessing one of the weirder American varieties. I’m not religious, but from a traditionally Catholic country, and I suppose culturally Catholic (my grandparents were Catholic). Most of my experience with Christians would be Catholics and Anglicans.
It _is_, I think, a fairly un-Catholic attitude (certainly post-Vatican II Catholic, which he would have to be, having been born after it), but maybe it fits better with evangelical Protestantism? That said, it’s surprising to me that someone who holds such views would marry someone of another religion; you’d think that either they’d respect the spouse’s beliefs, or find them a barrier.
The middle ground of “I can marry this person, but also _they should convert_” is pretty odd to me.
(I mean, honestly in this case I’m kind of assuming that it’s performative for his audience, and that he didn’t hold any such views when they got married, and probably still doesn’t. Because you’d be a fool to take this guy at his word. But if it’s _real_, yeah, sorry, that’s pretty fucked up)
Everyone working in a technical field knows one of these people. I hope they get everything they deserve.
Rather than make a snarky response I’m just going to say you should hope for better things.
> Some tell WIRED the vitriol is making them feel duped by the president and fearful that the hateful rhetoric will become a mainstay for the party.
I'm sorry, but what? How could any of this be a surprise? Sometimes I don't understand people.
I'm sorry, but what? How could any of this be a surprise? Sometimes I don't understand people.
It makes a lot of sense that Asians, including Indians, went for the GOP in larger numbers in 2024. I don’t think they were going for Trump specifically as much as looking for an alternative to progressive extremism. Look at the issues and positions pushed by the far left in America in the years leading up to Trump 2: soft on crime policies, years (decades?) of racial discrimination in college admissions, years of DEI-driven quota policies at tech companies (for hiring and promotions), increasing amounts of spending without results in cities/states, reducing quality in public schools, and so on. Is it any surprise that ethnic groups known for a focus on education, safety, and high incomes, soured on the Democrats’ platform?
That doesn’t make them gullible like the “leopard” comment suggests. They’re just caught between two sides that both have vocal minorities who hate them in different ways. And remember, in the entire campaign and early months of the administration, there was little visible racism / bigotry in the mainstream places.
I think the right-wingers that can’t stand them, the racists / far-right extremists, are small in number but very vocal and perhaps influential (just like the far-left). This is especially visible on Twitter, where it does feel like the algorithms amplify many of them. I find it strange that so many of them are visible in replies to Elon or others. But in recent months, especially with immigration becoming a central topic in politics, it really ramped up. And it’s unfortunate that intelligent and capable people like Vivek Ramaswamy have been the victim of that bigotry - I’d love to see what people like him can do in politics.
Regardless, I think the extremism and rampant corruption of the Trump administration alone will push these groups back to the Democrats, at least a little bit. The visible rise of racism against immigrants and Asians will make this swing back even bigger.
That doesn’t make them gullible like the “leopard” comment suggests. They’re just caught between two sides that both have vocal minorities who hate them in different ways. And remember, in the entire campaign and early months of the administration, there was little visible racism / bigotry in the mainstream places.
I think the right-wingers that can’t stand them, the racists / far-right extremists, are small in number but very vocal and perhaps influential (just like the far-left). This is especially visible on Twitter, where it does feel like the algorithms amplify many of them. I find it strange that so many of them are visible in replies to Elon or others. But in recent months, especially with immigration becoming a central topic in politics, it really ramped up. And it’s unfortunate that intelligent and capable people like Vivek Ramaswamy have been the victim of that bigotry - I’d love to see what people like him can do in politics.
Regardless, I think the extremism and rampant corruption of the Trump administration alone will push these groups back to the Democrats, at least a little bit. The visible rise of racism against immigrants and Asians will make this swing back even bigger.
We never had any progressive extremists in the US. Our last president was center, maybe slightly right of center. Our current president is a far-right fascist.
Jimmy Carter might have been our last left of center president. Clinton, Obama, and definitely Biden were pure center to right of center.
We get more progressives in local government, like Seattle’s newly elected mayor, but Democrats become more center the more votes they need to get elected.
We get more progressives in local government, like Seattle’s newly elected mayor, but Democrats become more center the more votes they need to get elected.
They preferred racist extremism and anti-scientific, pro-oligarchical policies to the extremely conventional governing we were experiencing? That's like deciding to kill all the pollinator insects because a yellowjacket bit you once. Southeast Asians are only tolerated in numbers to begin with because MAGA elements have been suppressed for so long.
As I mentioned before, I live in a blue state as most Indian-Americans do. I can tell you every racist encounter me or my family has ever had (thankfully not a lot) has been with people who if they voted at all voted Democrat. The Internet is not real. Groypers don’t actually exist in my world. Crime, potholes, fraud, woke extremism and low standards do. Mostly these are not national issues but the national party sets the tone.
In 2028, I can see Indian-Americans voting for Vance or Rubio. If it is someone more extreme than that I don’t know. Last time I asked who the Democrat nominee should be. No one answered. If it is someone who is merely “not Trump” or has an appropriately colored vagina I like Republican chances.
In 2028, I can see Indian-Americans voting for Vance or Rubio. If it is someone more extreme than that I don’t know. Last time I asked who the Democrat nominee should be. No one answered. If it is someone who is merely “not Trump” or has an appropriately colored vagina I like Republican chances.
> every racist encounter me or my family has ever had (thankfully not a lot) has been with people who if they voted at all voted Democrat.
Reddit is mostly rascist towards Indians too.
Reddit is mostly rascist towards Indians too.
> potholes
If you think the president fixes potholes, please do the country a favor and stop voting.
If you think the president fixes potholes, please do the country a favor and stop voting.
If you read “Mostly these are not national issues but the national party sets the tone.” and understood that I think the president fixes potholes then maybe you should do the country a favor etc.
"Surely the leopard wont eat MY face"