Your interpretation implies that the queer element of the oppressive queer conservative is the more substantive one.
I think most people correctly recognize it is the conservative element that is the more oppressive one.
I think even conservatives recognize this because the only time they don’t want credit for the nasty things they do is when they’d get in trouble. They like the oppression. They want the credit.
So, you are hearing people blame queer people. And I am hearing them blame conservatives.
A queer person is fine. Naturally. A queer conservative, well… what happened, right?
The fear you have then, I suppose, is that someone might hear the word “queer” or “lgbt” and think “Ah. You must be a conservative. Too bad you banned gay marriage for yourselves, hm?”, which is something I’m really trying to impress on you here: does not grok with me.
I don’t see this implication you’re worried about being reinforced—that means reflected in the other things people do and say—because this idea of the self-inflicted wound is not useful to anyone’s political ends.
Granted, maybe someday in the future, conservatives will try to use ideas like this to absolve themselves, the same way holocaust denial works.
But today, I only see people pointing out a strong hypocrisy among the conservative community. One that is conservative-self imposed: by living so inauthentically, they are placing themselves into a pressure cooker.
And further, because the ideal conservative lifestyle is so strict, as authoritarians are won’t to do, everyone is placed in this pressure cooker.
Heterosexuality, a different sexual pathology, is expressed very conservatively in the incel community.
Like, on some level, you are arguing against the adage “everything is about sex, and sex is about power,” which, as far as I know, is pretty well regarded. It’s not a secret that the right wing is insanely insecure.
I am sorry to have gotten a bit condescending here, but then I should be asking why you are giving me lessons on subtext.
I’ve looked at your comment history, you seem like a smart person. I don’t really understand where this is coming from.
If all black birds are ravens, then if a bird is black, by definition it is a raven.
If all homophobes are queer, then by definition all homophobia is enacted by people who are queer.
Therefore, the statement “every homophobe is a closeted queer person” automatically excludes all straight people from being capable of homophobia. The moment a straight person does something homophobic, they must, according to this line of thinking, actually be a closeted queer person.
And while the intent is to point out conservative hypocrisy, the effect, very subtly, is to craft a universe where straight people are absolved of any culpability for the existence of homophobia. It becomes, by definition, a queer problem.
I am not arguing against any of the things you seem to think I’m arguing against, nor am I making any of the points you seem to think I’m making. Everything in your previous comment is a response to an invention that exists solely in your head. I am making the point that I have just stated, as plainly as it is possible to state it. If you’re still not getting it, sit back, have a cup of coffee, and read it again.
Your interpretation implies that the queer element of the oppressive queer conservative is the more substantive one.
I think most people correctly recognize it is the conservative element that is the more oppressive one.
I think even conservatives recognize this because the only time they don’t want credit for the nasty things they do is when they’d get in trouble. They like the oppression. They want the credit.
So, you are hearing people blame queer people. And I am hearing them blame conservatives.
A queer person is fine. Naturally. A queer conservative, well… what happened, right?
The fear you have then, I suppose, is that someone might hear the word “queer” or “lgbt” and think “Ah. You must be a conservative. Too bad you banned gay marriage for yourselves, hm?”, which is something I’m really trying to impress on you here: does not grok with me.
I don’t see this implication you’re worried about being reinforced—that means reflected in the other things people do and say—because this idea of the self-inflicted wound is not useful to anyone’s political ends.
Granted, maybe someday in the future, conservatives will try to use ideas like this to absolve themselves, the same way holocaust denial works.
But today, I only see people pointing out a strong hypocrisy among the conservative community. One that is conservative-self imposed: by living so inauthentically, they are placing themselves into a pressure cooker.
And further, because the ideal conservative lifestyle is so strict, as authoritarians are won’t to do, everyone is placed in this pressure cooker.
Heterosexuality, a different sexual pathology, is expressed very conservatively in the incel community.
Like, on some level, you are arguing against the adage “everything is about sex, and sex is about power,” which, as far as I know, is pretty well regarded. It’s not a secret that the right wing is insanely insecure.
I am sorry to have gotten a bit condescending here, but then I should be asking why you are giving me lessons on subtext.
I’ve looked at your comment history, you seem like a smart person. I don’t really understand where this is coming from.
If all black birds are ravens, then if a bird is black, by definition it is a raven.
If all homophobes are queer, then by definition all homophobia is enacted by people who are queer.
Therefore, the statement “every homophobe is a closeted queer person” automatically excludes all straight people from being capable of homophobia. The moment a straight person does something homophobic, they must, according to this line of thinking, actually be a closeted queer person.
And while the intent is to point out conservative hypocrisy, the effect, very subtly, is to craft a universe where straight people are absolved of any culpability for the existence of homophobia. It becomes, by definition, a queer problem.
I am not arguing against any of the things you seem to think I’m arguing against, nor am I making any of the points you seem to think I’m making. Everything in your previous comment is a response to an invention that exists solely in your head. I am making the point that I have just stated, as plainly as it is possible to state it. If you’re still not getting it, sit back, have a cup of coffee, and read it again.