Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
not really - you can be gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward. these personal identity markers are subsumed by material interests and therefore class. it’s, for example, why so many white, wealthy gay people are significantly to the right of where they were 40 years ago - cf Peter Thiel. when the state was turned against their existence they were nominally left and as that violence abated, class interests dominated. it’s also why so many trans people are communists right now - the state is trying to murder us.
you can be [openly] gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward.
Exactly. And you can be openly gay and a white supremacist, and you can be openly gay and pro-gun, you can be openly gay and a Christian nationalist.
You can be an openly gay, white supremacist, pro-gun, Christian nationalist. You could have 99.99% republican values, but spend your weekends furthering LGBTQ rights. The class structures that subsume indenty aren’t as stringent as you present them to be.
Like without even looking it up I bet there are trans Republican groups, do you disagree?
yeah of course. no one is saying class traitors don’t exist. but it’s on them to prove it. Engels himself was one such person.
Generally you would not expect a gay Republican to be very proactive in furthering gay rights (Dems don’t either most of the time, but w/e). They would spend their time role-playing as “one of the good ones” and get accused of being a subversive is they actually collaborated with queer groups that were anything but “Gays for Trump” type PR campaigns.
This is not just hypothetical, we can see many people of different minority identities who support horrible reaction and only use that identity as a shield from left criticism. Milo Yianopolos (forgot the spelling) publically gave lectures on how lesbians “don’t exist” and “need a good d***ing” and defended pedophilia, but never seemed that interested in actually furthering rights even for relations between gay men. Candace Owens famously defended Hitler’s domestic policy in public and speaks on black issues mainly to launder conservative talking points using her identity.
This is borderline (and in my opinion flies right past it) homophobic rhetoric. I would read the responses you get and do some self crit.
You think believing someone can be openly gay and Republican is homophobic?
Or maybe you just don’t like the political implications of what I’m saying, and how that effects the practicality of your ideology.
Replace ‘openly gay’ with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?
Replace ‘openly gay’ with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?
Uhhh, yeah I’m sure people who support universal healthcare have that hardwired into their brain from childhood. Totally the same thing.
it’s totally not a conclusion based on analysis of material conditions.
