> I do not agree with homosexuality. I think that Clause 28 [against the public "promotion" of homosexuality] will help outlaw it and the rest will be done by AIDS, with a substantial number of homosexuals dying of AIDS. I think that's probably the best way.
How can the relatively sudden and radical change in the acceptance of homosexuality within the Western world be explained? Gays in the US went from being insulted by public figures, threatened by politicians, harassed by police and shunned by mainstream society well into the '80s to being offered rainbow-themed burgers by major corporations barely 30 years later. How come?
probably a change in the development in productive forces led to a reorganization of ideological structures to accommodate them, as has happened with literally every other shift in attitudes and values in human history.
The intellectual elite is generally rife with all sorts of general shades of bisexual people (refer to Kinsey's Scale for more information on that matter) so they tend to promote acceptance of a more flexible approach to gender and love. Some people fell in love with their friends and never really could be happy together just because of social stigma.
Entryism, decline of religion in the West, and a healthy combination of radical activists (think Stonewall) and more moderate socdem/soclib creeping into politics.
Eventually, homophobia went from a consensus to a subject of debate, to a minority position. This position was cemented when neolib realised that LGBT advocacy could be their socially liberal guarantee. Even now, more right-wingers have latched on the subject to oppose Islam and "gay rights", even more consolidating the position. It doesn't mean, however, that residual homophobia doesn't exist anymore though.
Western liberals adopted their cause to prove how progressive they are despite allowing economics to be as right wing as possible. Probably because liberals had also already hung up their "racism is dead" trophy on the wall, and obviously too soon.
Also this related to shallow bourgeois feminism.
r/ing that pic of lgbt porky and rainbow Doritos and Hillary using the gay flag as a shield against "valid criticism"
Well, this is a socialist board so that goes without saying. What I'm looking for is the concrete reason why this shift in the superstructure happened, in less than three decades no less.
But then why didn't it happen before? Why were working-class gays and lesbians still persecuted well into the '80s? Remember how ugly the AIDS crisis was…
Right now. To the ruling class. The LGBT individuals are particularly seen as a tools used to gain power, thats it. Especially to Republicans.
They betray them hard, backstab them with an ice pick once their usefulness for them is over. This isn't new. LGBT individuals have to know better by know but some don't, the remaining ones will do soon through. The mindsets are finally changing for the better know, now there are less liberals, less gay republicans. All of them are coming here now.
Used to be more taboo. Nowadays, it's fairly easy not to get AIDS if you use condoms and stick to few trusted partners (or even one or none at all).
I believe that the ones who vote for Rs are both wealthier and live in socially liberal states (NY, CA etc) so they care more about lower taxes and shit like that cause the cosequences of Republican rule won't have any effect on their lives.
After the failure of most 60/70's subcultures, Neoliberalism incorporated all the old counter culture movements but suspended them in an aura of subversion. Which is why Pride, sponsored by the biggest names in business, is still seen as transgressive despite it being obviously mainstream.
I feel it is a way to generate and sustain pseudo-discord between 'the people' and government in the West. To believe that all we have to fight for are liberal rights
I think you've missed the influence of superior communications technology. Increasingly greater access to information from the introduction of newspapers trough radio and tv to the internet has placed steadily more information and perspectives at the populations fingertips to enable them to make judgements on the harms of such activities.
Not every fart in history can be directly explained by muh productive forces.
Each generation was more accepting of it than the last, and eventually porky realized he couldn't use it as a distraction anymore so he uses it to virtue signal now instead.
why vote that way through. the electoral college is a bitch and nullifies their vote. these people are simply retarded, thats it. It's only about "I'm wealthy and wanna stay wealthy foverever!" when they live in swing states.
But in any other scenario they're against themselves, against their self-interest, like retards.
I always keep a metaphor to highlight the true intent of the bourgeois.
The slave trade wants the remain no matter what. The liberals fight the bigoted nature of the slave trade by making slave masters and slaves more diverse so the slave trade is no longer racist. The left just wants to get rid of the slave trade.
Being for the LGBT and other idpol is just another way for the bourgeois to remain in power.
nah you used the generalizations wrong at the end.
being for liberalism (typical modern constitutional state) is just another way for the bourgeois to remain in power.
Few people operate on ideals user. You and I do.
Rising militancy lead to porky taking the option they always do when a movement gathers revolutionary potential, they absorbed and neutered it. And the way to do that was by "supporting" gay people with lip service.
Same thing happened with women's lib, same thing happened with black liberation in the US, same thing happened with the green/eco movement, same thing happened with hippes. To an extent the same thing has happened with socialism. The icons and rhetoric have been eaten up by liberals, effectively working to kill the danger of the substance. It's vile.
I think that corporations realized that gays had market value, and politicians realized that they could pander to them to gain progressive street cred while making people poorer and dropping bombs on Arabs.
Gays don't favor any particular class. Their isn't really a struggle or conflict over resources between homosexuals and other parts of society. They have, historically, existed as a social sub-group and the 20th century hostility towards them is the anomaly.
Gives liberalism an excuse for being shit. People may be starving and sleeping on the streets but look at all these fabulous gay marriages we are having. Gives liberal society a thin veneer of progress.
Activists worked their asses off to bring homosexuality into public discussion and support people in coming out. It's hard to be a homophobe when family or friends you deeply care about admit to being gay so most people have had a change of heart on the issue. I think a lot of people here are reducing the gay rights to some liberal conspiracy when in reality liberals only adopted this progressive attitude within the past few years after decades of struggle.
That's the problem with LGBT rights. It's easy for people to jump on absolute points of view when it's really not that difficult to understand. At least it forces people to actually consider different viewpoints which is quite a lot in our times.
When. Environmentalism is still quite radical and it’s far from finished. Yes some Porkies support it, but most Environmental activists don’t think those companies are environmental. Just look at the Green Party US. There Melenchon tier SocDems and on the way to eco-communism right now.
modern capitalism thrives on the liquidation of the private sphere. this has its benefits, sure, but also drawbacks. the 'lgbt community' has become just another marketing demographic to be exploited and regulated by the culture industry, when before it was seen as a threat because it escaped regulation.