It means anyone who truly believes in homophobia which is indeed within the texts every pre reformation christian holds dear. Unless we include the gnostics, but everyone persecuted them so I'm not in the way I am phrasing things.
to the best of knowledge none of the new atheists advocated for socialist perspectives on equality. To further my point: misogyny (which is also very much the bible) should have been treated the same way. Progress was made, but not nearly enough of it stuck. A greater change to culture would have made more if it stick.
My overall point is: it is better a generation of (as you call it) "tyranny" so the next generation is raised believing in our values than allowing multiple generations to be raised with socially normalized bigotry.
Perhaps you are right and social engineering instead of a crackdown would have worked. I am arguing that everything tried was nowhere near enough and that bigoted beliefs cannot spread without people spreading them. Address the root problem, the people spreading the bigoted beliefs. If Tate had died in the crib how many young western men would not have fallen victim to the message he spreads? remove every Tate-like figure and they would not have been corrupted.
Look at the evil inherent to the Amerikkkan world-view (MSE used to distinguish between the USA and the rest of the peoples who live in the Americas). It is pushed from the top-down. Yes, there is a willingness born of the fact it benefits many in some cases, and all in some, but most of al it benefits the people who wield power. It proves that those who control the levers of power can actually dictate the worldview of most. Why does my coworker who stocks shelves with me think the CEO earned his place in the family company? Because society forces that view on him via a combination of suppressing dissent and strongly emphasizing arguements in favor of this. If a strong state can successfully suppress class interest, it can suppress bigoted worldviews.
It’s possible to forbid homophobia and also still allow religions to exist and wither away organically. Make homophobia illegal and punish it appropriately when statements or actions are made. Those within religious institutions that fail to comply can be punished until either the institution reforms or ceases to exist. You don’t start out by saying “I will eradicate your religion” or you will guarantee reaction and maximum hostility.
the entire reason the ussr re-legalized homophobia was religion. This is the crux of what I am saying. Remove religion as a factor and that would not have happened. Therefore: remove religion. When a person has cancer you remove the tumor, do the same for society.
Upon reflection: What was tried clearly did not work. How would you actually do things differently given the knowledge that the actually occurring history we are discussing did not succeed in solving the problem. I am willing to be convinced a different approach is better, but I am very unlikely to be convinced what was tried was the optimal solution. I am advocating a cauterization approach because if it did go far enough, going all the way would be a good second attempt. If it works by going too far, at least it worked and nothing else has.
It means anyone who truly believes in homophobia which is indeed within the texts every pre reformation christian holds dear. Unless we include the gnostics, but everyone persecuted them so I'm not in the way I am phrasing things.
to the best of knowledge none of the new atheists advocated for socialist perspectives on equality. To further my point: misogyny (which is also very much the bible) should have been treated the same way. Progress was made, but not nearly enough of it stuck. A greater change to culture would have made more if it stick.
My overall point is: it is better a generation of (as you call it) "tyranny" so the next generation is raised believing in our values than allowing multiple generations to be raised with socially normalized bigotry.
Perhaps you are right and social engineering instead of a crackdown would have worked. I am arguing that everything tried was nowhere near enough and that bigoted beliefs cannot spread without people spreading them. Address the root problem, the people spreading the bigoted beliefs. If Tate had died in the crib how many young western men would not have fallen victim to the message he spreads? remove every Tate-like figure and they would not have been corrupted.
Look at the evil inherent to the Amerikkkan world-view (MSE used to distinguish between the USA and the rest of the peoples who live in the Americas). It is pushed from the top-down. Yes, there is a willingness born of the fact it benefits many in some cases, and all in some, but most of al it benefits the people who wield power. It proves that those who control the levers of power can actually dictate the worldview of most. Why does my coworker who stocks shelves with me think the CEO earned his place in the family company? Because society forces that view on him via a combination of suppressing dissent and strongly emphasizing arguements in favor of this. If a strong state can successfully suppress class interest, it can suppress bigoted worldviews.
It’s possible to forbid homophobia and also still allow religions to exist and wither away organically. Make homophobia illegal and punish it appropriately when statements or actions are made. Those within religious institutions that fail to comply can be punished until either the institution reforms or ceases to exist. You don’t start out by saying “I will eradicate your religion” or you will guarantee reaction and maximum hostility.
the entire reason the ussr re-legalized homophobia was religion. This is the crux of what I am saying. Remove religion as a factor and that would not have happened. Therefore: remove religion. When a person has cancer you remove the tumor, do the same for society.
Upon reflection: What was tried clearly did not work. How would you actually do things differently given the knowledge that the actually occurring history we are discussing did not succeed in solving the problem. I am willing to be convinced a different approach is better, but I am very unlikely to be convinced what was tried was the optimal solution. I am advocating a cauterization approach because if it did go far enough, going all the way would be a good second attempt. If it works by going too far, at least it worked and nothing else has.