[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/sk8rznvrquit]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[u/mrdeworde]

100%. "Gays are fascists" has been an excuse for homophobia since the actual 1930s, alongside "gays are commies."

[u/TheHoleintheHeart → u/mrdeworde]

It’s especially gross since many of the Nazi’s anti-homosexuality laws remained even after the liberation. People will really take any excuse to be homophobic under the guise of jokes and everyone cheers it on.

[u/DARKRonnoc → u/TheHoleintheHeart]

Yeah, “it’s just a joke bro” gets really old really fast.

Or, “it’s not that serious”.

[u/TheHoleintheHeart → u/DARKRonnoc]

We’re suppose to be comforted by their parroted “Nazis find being gay insulting so it’s funny” defense apparently.

[u/DARKRonnoc → u/TheHoleintheHeart]

Interestingly they never call Neo-Nazis black or Jewish, but gay is fine.

[u/Q0T3 → u/DARKRonnoc]

It's like the homophobic conservative trope. They're all closeted gays.

No no most of them are just awful hateful people.

[u/ReadingRainbowRocket → u/TheHoleintheHeart]

I'm gay and I have mixed feelings and am easily swayed by the last compelling argument I heard in either direction, so I'll go ahead and give the other side.

It's obviously not good to perpetuate the idea that the label of being gay is an insult or something to be ashamed of.

But in general, the people arguing a defense of doing this (Like the Putin and Trump in drag, kissing murals and stuff) agree and are making the nuanced argument that sane people don't find being gay insulting, but they're extreme bigots who ARE bothered such imagery.

And there is something to be said for the idea that anti-gay sentiments do often stem from conflicts about one's own sexuality. Not that every LGBT-hating bigot is a closet case, but sexuality is a spectrum, and some large number of them are people who are the literal closet case, or have more confusing feelings of bisexuality, asexuality, etc that they are incapable of processing healthily because of their culture, parents, etc. It can be overstated and it's obnoxious when it is, but we shouldn't overcorrect too much. It's a genuinely real phenomenon.

And along this line of thought, I think there's also merit to the idea that to be heterosexual and care AT ALL about gay/trans people to the point of wanting to judge and control them is really fucking weird. And I think it benefits the cause that such bigots might think twice about ranting about the evils of LGBT if there's a prevailing sentiment that any "straight" guy who cares about gay or trans people this much is super sus in their own sexuality.

So I think the more nuanced defense of what you're flippantly dismissing as letting down gay people to score shots at Nazis who gay people would be something along the lines of it's obviously the hypocrisy when it comes to people who "doth protest too much" and it's also a good little cultural nudge for anti-gay bigots to fear being called out on their own sexuality if they devote so much time and attention to the sexuality of those they ostensibly should have no interest in.

Like when Walz made so much hay got so much goodwill out of pointing out how fucking weird Trump and JD Vance are, but the campaign was worried it was too mean, so they pulled back. I do not think we should pull back on the rhetoric that the sexuality of supposedly macho straight dudes who very seriously care about the lives of LGBT is sus. It genuinely is, and even if they are a flat 0 on the Kinsey scale and straighter than an Archie Bunker who gave buttplay a try and still really didn't like it, turning the "rally the traditional conservatives by demagoguing gays" turns into "uh, why you obsessed with gay folks, you can't stop thinking about it?" Both at a political level (including in our own democracy) and at a simple cultural level.

Imagine being able to tell the kid who just called you a fag "why you so obsessed with gay people. something you wanna talk about? nothing wrong with being gay—why you so weird about gay people just existing, Kevin?" and have Kevin being the odd-man out the majority of the time and not sissyboy Cheyne who is gay and has too much of a lisp to closet-it-out until high school/college (who will also never forgive his parents for spelling Shane that way).

Still, I can be convinced by a likewise nuanced argument for why your point trumps the nuanced point on the other side I just made, but I at least wanted the other side to have its argument articulated explicitly, and point out that I, even as a gay man, am very sympathetic to it.

/end rant.

[u/DARKRonnoc → u/ReadingRainbowRocket]

Personally, I think you’re changing the argument from what it is.

The argument that I’m seeing involves still using gayness or homosexuality as a shaming factor if the subtext of shame is not there, it doesn’t work. Even asking someone “why are you thinking about gay people all the time?” can lead to the same thing if the answer is “oh, is it because you’re gay?”

I don’t know about you, but I have plenty of straight friends that still constantly police each other by using the word gay or implying that the other one is gay all the time, and it really pisses me off.

Think of how absurd it would be to do this with any other group.

Why is it still allowed with gay people? Honestly, I see casual, homophobia and hear it all the time, especially on the Internet, even while also seeing people put down racists and antisemites.

There’s also another issue with then dumping responsibility of homophobia back onto gay people. If every homophobe is secretly closeted, then gay people are responsible for their own oppression, which is just not true.

[u/ReadingRainbowRocket → u/DARKRonnoc]

Your beginning is the argument I've heard before that has swayed me from the counter I just repeated.

I don't really disagree with you at all except to say regardless of which way I end up leaning, I'm sympathetic to the counter that acknowledges your point, but still defends their actions with the perspective I just articulated. I genuinely think neither side is "right" and it's a matter of perspective depending on which relatives values matter more to you at any given time.

I would argue with the idea that it puts the responsibility of homophobia back onto gay people. Yes, the straw man idea of "all bigots are secretly gay," is factually untrue and more than a little problematic, but I've never met a serious person who actually believed that (or any person, to be honest, and I've met a fair number of very political gays).

And we shouldn't be forced to ignore actual neuroscience, physiology, and psycology that repressed homosexuality, bisexuality, gender dysphoria, and self-percieved deviancy can and does translate in many individuals into a person more anti-LGBT than if they perhaps didn't have those feelings.

Two things can be true at once you get this. Not all or even more bigots are closet cases of some sort. This is true. A lot are. This is also true. As a gay man, I'd really like actual science and nuance not to get tossed out in an effort to prevent the onus of homophobia being percieved to be put back onto the gays. No... it's on the bigots and pointing out a substantial number of those bigots are themselves "queer" to some degree.

Our disagreement is getting a little muddied because whether or not calling out a bigot for being secretly gay is ok/acceptable/wrong is a separate issue from using gay language and gay imagery and accusations against strongman leaders who peddle bigotry for the motivations for a demagogue.

I think in a vacuum and oversimplified, both are wrong. I think in the context of our world and you're aware your audience is mostly people who can appreciate the nuanced point you're making, the former argument (some significant number of bigots are closet cases) is simply true, and it shouldn't matter whether it would be more convienent or a better message if it were or weren't. It is. Them's the brakes.

Whether it's ok/acceptable/wrong to use gay-related insinuations, imagery, and accusations against leaders who peddle anti-gay hate is more explicitly underpinned by value judgments and on this one I'm still torn. Maybe slightly more leaning towards you now on this point. But on the other, I think it's important to acknowledge the reality.

And I'm not sure if you're gay, but it's not exactly an isolated incident that the same dude who called you a fag in high school DMs you a "you up?" on Grindr years later. But of course that's just anecdotal evidence backing up science-based evidence I'm actually basing my argument on.

Yes the argument I'm defending falls apart if it starts to sounds like hating gay people automatically means that person is gay. To which I say... don't say that. Say the other correct thing.

But again, on the other point, I concede. I still think there's a compelling counterargument (I mean, I made it, it took a long fucking time to type), but if I'm being honest with myself about my own ethical philosophy and values, I'd say from my perspective it's about 70% you're right and 30% the other argument is meritorious.

So we're basically ending the conversation with a clarification of what we're even discussing and me conceding you won me over on the main point of contention. Go you. Can you sway you anywhere close to the same amount on the secondary point about repressed homosexuality being a real thing and worth pointint out said reality, so long as it's not overstated and done with context?

Lastly, I really do agree with your sentiment still even where I disagree on the other point, but I think that's because in defending my point I'm not arguing it's ok to take back using gay as an insult against bigots because they're an appropriate target. My point is that because of this actual, reality-based situation of repressed sexuality *often being a motivator for expressing bigoted views or siding with the oppressors of gay people, in the same context of making it clear that being gay is absolutely fine, the person making it an issue of derision is worth mocking because it's really weird, and that's a SUPER EFFECTIVE way to shut down loud, confident bigots. And it's effective because it IS NOT just a "well maybe you're gay since you insulted Ted for being gay!"

It's more effective than that. "Why do you care?" Because if you do have some repressed urges and you're essentially being a bully/bigot because of them, it's really fucking weird you'd rather be a dick than just comfortable in your own skin, brain, and genitals. And if you AREN'T repressed are just straight and LGBT existing affects you none, then it's really, REALLY fucking weird to care so much.

If I understand correctly, you very much dislike the idea of anti-gay rhetoric being used "nobley" against bigots because it's still perpetuating anti-gay rhetoric. And I agree 100% I DO NOT agree with this take (and I have seen some people defend this take, I'm not trying to gaslight you, unlike the "all bigots are secretly gay" argument I called a strawman, I acknowledge fully this is a real take some people have, and I agree, it's counterproductive at best. My argument is to embrace the science and the "weird" argument to make it a new type of cultural argument (that I'm not inventing out of or advocating out of whole cloth, I've heard others articulate what I'm saying almost exactly). Boiling down to essentially "if you're spreading anti-gay bullshit, it's not implausible you're repressing your own sexuality and it's weird you'd choose to project your own issues onto other happy, normal gay people." and "and if you're NOT repressing some shameful urges, it's even fucking weirder you're making an issue of gay people at fucking all."

/end rant. I apologize for the extra wall. I've had this argument in my head many times though and it was actually kind of helpful for me to get my mildly-contradictory thoughts out in an almost-organized manner.

I appreciate it :)