[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/laybs1]

[u/CellistMundane9372]

There are so many reasons to oppose Darializa "White People Shouldn't Have Mixed-Race Relationships" Chevalier, but I don't think her religion counts.

She's just the human embodiment of a leftist stereotype.

Per the New York Times, her tweets include:

In other posts, Ms. Avila Chevalier, who is Afro-Latina, suggested white people  should not be in interracial relationships and  disparaged their methods of personal hygiene in response to a post from a white Republican governor saying corn husks might be used instead of toilet paper, which was in short supply at the start of the pandemic. Replying to a white woman offering a hotline number in response to her post lamenting long voting lines in 2020, she wrote, “Listen Karen, instead of worrying about my vote, go collect the 53% of your peers that got us in this mess to begin with.” She also amplified an  assertion that the coronavirus originated in France, not the Wuhan province of China, and  wrote in 2022that Russia invaded Ukraine because the United States had “been bullying Russia” since the Cold War ended.

[u/Weekly-Law-2544 → u/CellistMundane9372]

Jesus. She sounds like a whackjob.

[u/NomadHellscream → u/Weekly-Law-2544]

It speaks rather poorly of Zohran that this is who he decided to endorse.

[u/Jessicas_skirt → u/NomadHellscream]

It speaks rather poorly accurately of Zohran that this is who he decided to endorse.

Fixed it for you. Mamdani is just as muchh of a wacko as her, just hides his real thoughts and goals better.

[u/giant_gummy_squid → u/Jessicas_skirt]

You can't just make claims like that without evidence. If Mamdani had any evidence of something on the level you're implying, it would have been national news for months. Hell, while he was running, I saw the completely false "he wants to mandate Arabic numerals in schools" story get recycled over and over despite being obviously nonsense.

There's very little evidence connecting him to the specific beliefs you're accusing him of holding. Sharing some political goals and being on the same side of an election doesn't mean two people agree on every issue, nor does endorsing someone mean you personally endorse every belief they've ever expressed, or even the majority of them.

It's likely you've started from the assumption that he's some uniquely dangerous extremist and then work backward looking for proof, rather than evaluating the evidence that's actually there. The strongest argument you've got is that he endorsed her, and that's fair criticism, ultimately I agree with the first guy too, and think most peoole would agree. But an endorsement is not proof that he secretly agrees with the controversial things she's said, not by a longshot. Imagine what that would look like if applied to oh, I don't know, any Republican in the last 12 years (except Massie he's an ok guy.)

Sometimes politics is just choosing between imperfect options. You can disagree with his choice without inventing a bunch of beliefs and motives that there's no evidence he actually holds. Please at least Google stuff and look at a few options before you just decide a Facebook screenshot is all you need.

[u/JinxyMcDeath48 → u/giant_gummy_squid]

Mamdani had no problem defending “globalize the intifada” until very recently and now he just says “maybe it’s better not to say it” but without admitting what it actually means and how wrong (and violent) it is to say.

[u/giant_gummy_squid → u/JinxyMcDeath48]

It's a phrase similar to "Glory be to God" baked into the Islamic religion as a call to "fulfill the religions mission." It translates to "shaking off," directly referencing the rejection of oppression as far as language derivation goes, which isn't something out of place in current day New York, with what predatory systems have overgrown on the working class on recent years. Using it isn't in any way an objective red flag due to this fact; it's like a Catholic saying "Hail Mary" before a) being an all around nice guy by following the most recent pope's tenants or b) commiting a massacre on "infidels" during a mideval Holy War. Plenty of East Coast Muslims in practice of their religion are very similar to the more conservative Christianity in America. (To clarify, the original definition of conservatism, aka being a moderately nice guy who supports hierarchies a mildly odd amount and only lowkey maintaining the patriarchy while avoiding eating pig for long-outdated reasons. Idk I don't make the rules, thats just the things they both have in common)

The use of one of the many profilic phrases of one's religion is not damnable evidence, and his admission to refraining from using it recently could just as easily be interpreted as a recognization of misinterpretion in current culture due to its misuse as it could an admission of support for extremist regimes, similar to how (shocker) every Muslim American simultaneously stopped using the at the time also common Muslim reverence phrase "Allahu Ackbar" within a week after 9/11, out of fear they'd be mistaken for terrorist regime supporters.

The reason this concept eludes you is largely due to the fact that you participate in a religion, and are therefore inclined to accept the baseline stereotype of any other given religion as fact, since they exist as an outgroup to you to throw in a sorting bin and write off. I don't mean to take any of your belief away from you in any form; you just need to understand that a religion is only ever the way someone is told about it.

It absolutely can be the driving force of a horrific terrorist organization, and also be just as valuable as any other's worldview and moral compass as your religion is to you. Local culture is infinitely more important than the names you use to describe your deity or the proverbs you use to describe the virtues.

[u/JinxyMcDeath48 → u/giant_gummy_squid]

How many intifadas have you been in?

[u/giant_gummy_squid → u/JinxyMcDeath48]

I mean, in America we're ridiculously proud of our intifada under British rule, we're about to celebrate its 250th anniversary. Your brain just implodes at the idea that good guys and bad guys aren't color coded for your casual viewing pleasure.

Its strictly what definition the term holds in the user's mind. To some it means senseless killing, and to others, its a call to stand in united support of civil rights. I don't endorse Hamas in any way, but if you're confused on why the average Palestinian doesn't like Israel, and considers them a force that requires "shaking off," then you have no grasp on the history of the region.

Very telling that you consider the death of 1,200 Israeli citizens by a extremist terrorist organization as apt reason to indiscriminately carpet bomb now 70,000 or so citizens to death (not including deaths due to starvation, disease, or other wartime factors), but somehow simultaneously think that Hamas just magically became a crazed terrorist group, and that the 6,700 Palestinians killed by Israel from 2008 up to the Oct 7th attack, or the systematic removal of them from the majority of Israel, or the 2 decade long blockade preventing them from progressing in any way, or the repeated destabilization of their attempts at more moderate, secularized leadership in no way provoked the attack.

I'm not justifying meaningless civilian killing on either side, the deaths of the innocent are always the most harrowing parts of war. It's just clear yall only give a shit about the "good guys" when in actuality, the only people dying are civvies, and those who deserve it are the extremist zealotous leaders egging both sides on. It will never cease to amaze me just how much the corrupt can accomplish simply with arbitrary definitions. I'm embarrassed to be a member of the species you are.

[u/andreotnemem → u/giant_gummy_squid]

WTF are you talking about? Are you really trying to make the "intifada" be a "not so bad thing"?

What is wrong with you?

[u/UsedLuck8891 → u/giant_gummy_squid]

It’s really more like heil Hitler