Yeah, I mean, let’s look at the meat of this statement:
Okay… *why *do you regret them? Is it because they were hurtful? Because they were wrong? That you’re a different person now?
Or did you express these regrets on 1/12/2019 because you just announced your presidential candidacy on 1/11/2019? Nah, couldn’t possibly be.
“My personal journey?” If you’re gonna make this about you, then you need to explain exactly what all this aloha-sharing was about.
Wasn’t she arguing as recently as last year that people should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals if [del]they really wanted to[/del] they said their religion required them to discriminate?
Certainly, but then, is that the demographic she’s aiming for? Does it really help her to potentially burn the few evangelicals she has for the even fewer LGBT+ who might vote for her if she does spend the time?
She’s a politician, she must make these political calculations in regards to how she uses what little public exposure she gets.
I’m definitely not saying someone should vote for her. I’m certainly not hoping she wins the nomination. It’s just respectable, in my eyes, that she has discarded a flawed belief for a better one. That’s really it.
Don’t quote from context. I said “isn’t in the limelight ** to pursue the issue you want her to talk about**”. Yeah, she’s in the limelight, but not for LGBT+ advocacy. If she really is deeply regretful, I would think becoming an LGBT+ advocate would be a better use of her time, especially considering the harm she’s already caused and the good she could do instead of trying to move past it with just an apology, but it’s her life, and right now she’s dedicating it to a presidential run.
Doing what you ask of her doesn’t seem to have a favorable impact calculus, given her objective.
What’s her objective?
So far as I can tell? Become president. I suppose it’s possible she has some nefarious ulterior motive but… I don’t really have a substantial reason to believe that…
She’s aiming, at least in part, for progressives not evangelicals( who mostly consider Hindus pagan heretics, if they consider them at all ). Progressives may like some of her bonafides, but anti-LGBT+ is a big, big pill for many to swallow. I know I’m not.
I wasn’t suggesting a nefarious motive, just that the presidency isn’t a particularly realistic objective. You’re saying she’s got to hold her evangelical “base”? She has to win a primary before she wins the presidency. The evangelical bloc isn’t the strongest card.
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Has she actually discarded this belief, or is she only saying she has for the sake of political expediency?
I’m not sure the evangelical angle makes sense for her. She’s not staking out a position any different than any other candidate in the primary. Unless she’s banking on evangelicals thinking she’s as insincere as I do, there’s no reason for them to back her over Biden, or Harris, or anyone else up there.
Before I respond to this part, I just want to note that it was HMS Irruncible who posted that bit about “limelight,” not me.
She **is **running on the issue, though. It’s on her webpage. In the linked speech, she specifically (and literally!) says she’ll fight for gay people if she’s elected. The question is, is this position sincere, and if it is, is it enough to forgive her previous attacks on queer people?
What a silly position to take. She is running for President. She’s in the limelight to talk about whatever issues that Democratic voters want her to talk about, which in recent years has included LGBTQ issues.
And again - I’m not suggesting her platform needs to be heavily overweight on LGBTQ issues, just that she give us an explicit explanation why she stopped working against LGBTQ interests (so we have a reason to trust she won’t change course again for political expedience).
I thought about responding to Miller originally, but then thought, nah, don’t make this about me.
But turns out I should :).
It’s not just LGBTQ voters she’s alienating. It’s LGBTQ voters, and the much larger group of straight people who don’t like discrimination, especially if that discrimination continues because of a calculation that LGBTQ voters are a small enough percentage of the electorate that they may safely be thrown under the bus.
Yes, it IS a cultural thing in Hawai’i and you ARE missing out on deep emotional connotations. I’m sure you don’t mean to be condescending, but dismissing “aloha” as something from an “overpriced coffee mug from the Honolulu Hilton gift shop” comes across as ignorant and hurtful, though I understand it is unintentionally so.
I’m no particular fan of Gabbard, and I’m certainly in no position to claim Hawaiian culture as my own, but I can tell you for sure that the concept of aloha is a very real and treasured thing here. Sneeringly reducing it to a gambit to separate tourists from their money simply shows that you are unfamiliar with Hawai’i.
If Gabbard wants to be a politician on the national stage she’ll need to find language that works for everyone. I’ve been at least peripherally involved in the Pacific for so long that I guess I didn’t realize just how unfamiliar the “aloha” concept is to outsiders; I thought it was better known. I guess Gabbard thought so too. Anyway, please cut her some slack on her use of the term “aloha.” She may or may not be sincere in characterizing her change of heart with respect to LGBTQ issues, but I can guarantee you her use of the word “aloha” is anything but patronizing.
To most mainlanders, “aloha” is just the Hawaiian word for “hello” and “goodbye”. To the extent that any thought is given, it’s just thinking that it’s an amusing oddity that the same word is used for both. I happen to know that the literal meaning is “love”, and that already puts me at more knowledge than the vast majority. And I’m still missing out on all of that nuance you mention.
Given that aloha merch is found all over Hawaii, and is a major export of Hawaii, it seems weird to expect that someone who lives 4000 miles away should be more familiar with the “no actually” take on this.
How can you guarantee the intent of someone using a particular word? Are you friends with her? Do you possess a longer version of the statement that the rest of us haven’t seen?
If a plain translation is “love and compassion” or “good karma” or something deep and reverential, then it sounds extremely patronizing and superficial to name-drop any of that in a policy position, rather than speak plainly about why one changed their minds. (Did she change her mind because of all the alohas? Could she share one particularly moving aloha with us? Do they have magical powers? Most critically, do alohas have a shelf life longer than an election?
If the term doesn’t lend itself to plain translation, then it seems like she’s being opaque and evasive.
If it’s a term that’s mainly known in Hawaii, then it’s odd she thought mainlanders would understand it.
Anyway, my point isn’t to denigrate Hawaii or Aloha or anything, but rather to point out that using a magic word to cover a policy flip makes it look more like an elision strategy than a sincere statement of feeling.
"Gabbard said. “I’m grateful for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal journey.”
Aloha can mean goodbye, right?
(Can’t edit above. I see I’m too late on the draw with that one.)
Not in this context, no.
If delivered with a sweet smile, it can mean “Fuck off”.
FWIW, she’s taking two weeks off the campaign trail this summer for service with the Hawaii National Guard. She criticizes Assad in this article: Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, to pause campaign to report for active duty in Hawaii National Guard - CBS News
So, what job in the National Guard does this anti-war pacifist do?
Ah, here we go. As recently as January 10 of this year, she was on record that people should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.
So, did she have some massive change of heart sometime between January 10 and January 12? A lot of her fellow Hawaiians shared their aloha with her in those two days? Because it’s kind of hard to fight for the rights of homosexuals while you’re simultaneously calling anyone who fights for the rights of homosexuals a bigot.