There’s definitely a difference between the people proposing such things (a minority) and their followers:
The minority definitely seem get caught with their pants down more often, usually with a rent-boy and a bag of meth. Totally get that maybe this is about “forbidden fruit”
But the rest? Definitely due lack of education and religion (which usually follows the former).
Now, for the most part, the poor southerners I’ve met really don’t care about homosexuality when you talk to them alone. In bigger groups, it’s definitely a problem. How you fix this, I definitely don’t know, but it is definitely not by victimizing.
Unfortunately, the minority have created other “cognitive barriers” to prevent the poor from realizing what their actual challenges are - Immigrants is another good example.
In short, this is just another form of class warfare.
[-]dandelion4 points3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
Sure, though I would be careful not to reduce this to class warfare (not necessarily what you're doing, just wanted to clarify). Instead I would just say that economic oppression is a huge part of the dynamic. Poverty and the role of religion in hegemony are both clearly connected to both economic oppression and the social problems of homophobia and heteronormativity. 😅
And I want to re-iterate and emphasize your point: there is a huge difference morally between the propagandists, political strategists, politicians, and others who make up the life-blood of reactionary groups like the Heritage Foundation, the American Family Association, or the Republican party who are actively working to achieve their political and social goals, and the lay people who are the audience or supporters of those groups.
People who attend churches, donate to reactionary groups, vote for right-wing parties, etc. tend to be less informed and aware of how they have been duped, and thus are better seen as marks or victims who, due to the dynamic of their abuse, participate in perpetuating and enabling their own victimization (usually without awareness). I think the Marxists would call this "false consciousness", the way the working class lack awareness of their class status and so on.
But more broadly, we can think of this as a social dynamic where there are people who manipulate and those who are manipulated - whether it's a multi-level marketing scheme, an employer and their employees, or a political party and their voters.
My point is that the revenge we seek might be more justified when directed at the manipulators rather than when directed at the manipulated. I think we tend to attack the manipulated much more, however, because they are easier targets.
There’s definitely a difference between the people proposing such things (a minority) and their followers:
The minority definitely seem get caught with their pants down more often, usually with a rent-boy and a bag of meth. Totally get that maybe this is about “forbidden fruit”
But the rest? Definitely due lack of education and religion (which usually follows the former).
Now, for the most part, the poor southerners I’ve met really don’t care about homosexuality when you talk to them alone. In bigger groups, it’s definitely a problem. How you fix this, I definitely don’t know, but it is definitely not by victimizing.
Unfortunately, the minority have created other “cognitive barriers” to prevent the poor from realizing what their actual challenges are - Immigrants is another good example.
In short, this is just another form of class warfare.
Sure, though I would be careful not to reduce this to class warfare (not necessarily what you're doing, just wanted to clarify). Instead I would just say that economic oppression is a huge part of the dynamic. Poverty and the role of religion in hegemony are both clearly connected to both economic oppression and the social problems of homophobia and heteronormativity. 😅
And I want to re-iterate and emphasize your point: there is a huge difference morally between the propagandists, political strategists, politicians, and others who make up the life-blood of reactionary groups like the Heritage Foundation, the American Family Association, or the Republican party who are actively working to achieve their political and social goals, and the lay people who are the audience or supporters of those groups.
People who attend churches, donate to reactionary groups, vote for right-wing parties, etc. tend to be less informed and aware of how they have been duped, and thus are better seen as marks or victims who, due to the dynamic of their abuse, participate in perpetuating and enabling their own victimization (usually without awareness). I think the Marxists would call this "false consciousness", the way the working class lack awareness of their class status and so on.
But more broadly, we can think of this as a social dynamic where there are people who manipulate and those who are manipulated - whether it's a multi-level marketing scheme, an employer and their employees, or a political party and their voters.
My point is that the revenge we seek might be more justified when directed at the manipulators rather than when directed at the manipulated. I think we tend to attack the manipulated much more, however, because they are easier targets.
Anyway, I feel that's worth mentioning.
Love and welcome the clarifications - Couldn’t agree more