488
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
488 points (96.9% liked)
politics
18881 readers
4445 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While I agree that it's important to have a basis for making a claim, I don't think it was put forth here because Johnson "is an asshole and it would be funny". It was put forth because there's an observable history of the loudest conservative homophobes eventually being outed as self-hating homosexuals. The focus here is on the secretly part, not the gay part.
Again, what basis is there for him being gay other than "he is an asshole and conservative assholes are often secretly gay"? Which is "he is gay because he is an asshole"
And if the issue is just that he has secrets? Say he has secrets. But that wouldn't be as "insulting" as calling him gay. So no, the focus is not on "secretly"
Also, as mentioned: Plenty of gay folk are still afraid to "come out" because of bigots like johnson. So is this also an insult to them for having "secrets" or whatever nonsense you are using because you can't stop calling people "gay" as an insult?
Commenting on an observed phenomenon isn't calling him gay to be insulting.
https://youtu.be/simV1ZXFsxI?si=aPymVlw5xjSQAmrw
Gay closeted Republicans railing against gay rights is a fucking trope at this point. If it was a movie, we'd shit on the writers for being lazy.
The statement was made not because he's being an asshole in general. It was because he's being an asshole specifically targeting gays having equal rights. He could simply be a heterosexual asshole, but it's not implausible that he has homosexual arousal and he expresses that with vocal homophobia (which would likely be due to his religion saying those impulses are sinful). There have even been studies on the phenomenon, such as here, which states:
So it's quite reasonable to take the research data that affirms the phenomenon and apply it individuals we see being very outwardly homophobic and presume that those individuals may be secretly gay.
Absolutely. That's why I will always vote against candidates who espouse such bigoted rhetoric.
Johnson, and other conservatives, would perceive "secretly gay" as an insult, but advocates for equal rights should not, because there's nothing shameful about one's place on the spectrum (assuming all parties are consenting adults). I did not perceive the comment to be insulting Johnson with an accusation, but rather asserting a potential context for his homophobic rhetoric and legislative agenda, and thus a reason to vote him out.