Calling out the extremely toxic effects of repressive hetero-normative culture is NOT homophobia...

[markpkessinger]

. . . nor is it "victim blaming." I say this as a gay man who has been out and proud for 36 years (since age 19). Rather, it is about recognizing how truly toxic a virulently repressive, hetero-normative culture can be in some instances. In the case of the Orlando shooter, you can agree or disagree that his own, internal conflict over his sexual identity was at issue, but to say that any suggestion that it might have been so is "homophobic" or represents "victim blaming" is to profoundly misunderstand what is being said (and what isn't being said). This isn't blaming his outburst on the fact that he might have been gay himself, but rather is blaming the repressive culture in which he grew up that lay at the source of his internal conflict.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that by denying that this could possibly have been a factor, what you are actually doing is getting hetero-normative culture off the hook for its own toxicity!

[Prism]

1. The problem is when B does not follow A in these discussions

And that's where a lot of the objections rest, IMO. "Well, he was just a deranged closet case. Mystery solved! We may all move on now." I have seen that thinking time and time again. As if the self-loathing is the real problem there and not the culture that inculcated it. "Well, if he just accepted himself . . ."

Yeah, and why do you think he didn't? Weird, right? (not addressing this to you, Mark, but to the sentiments that are almost always overwhelmingly expressed by heterosexuals after a closeted LGBTer does something).

And so we're already getting it here.

"Islam had nothing to do with it!"

Really? Nothing at all? Being raised in a conservative religion with a serious animus toward homosexuality had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what went down? As if his self-loathing and radicalization and alienation from society fell out of an absolute clear blue sky.

I have no patience for this stuff. And we betray and dishonor those we've lost when we allow heterosexuals to refuse to examine their own roles in a society that ensures LGBTers do not love themselves as much as their heterosexual peers.

I know why you've written the post. But I understand the reflexive defensiveness in the community. Because it has been used countless times in the past to lay the responsibility at LGBTers' feet and absolve themselves from asking some tough questions.

And this case is chock full of tough questions. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a perfectly chaotic psychological clusterfuck in my life. The more we learn, the crazier it gets. Where are we now in all of this? A self-loathing, gay or bisexual man, raised in a conservative religion, resentful of racism, but also said to be racist, is attracted to Latino men and then desires to take revenge on them for feeling betrayed and rejected while openly admiring (and expressing this admiration well before the massacre) for radical Islamists in the Middle East while tormenting the women in his life with relentless misogyny.

Do I have all that?

This case is ripe for people to press agendas from every conceivable angle, and boy howdy are people going to town.

The truth should suffice. The whole truth. And all the implications that come with it.

[arcane1]

3. "I'm not sure I've ever seen such a perfectly chaotic psychological clusterfuck in my life"

Well-said. I don't think it's possible to have a single answer to him; his profile is most multi-faceted indeed.

[RobinA]

11. Well, I Have

but I work in a psychiatric hospital.

This is pretty much it. It's not one or the other or the next, it's the whole shebang. A multitude of cultural factors from not one but several cultures, plus what this guy's own genetic stew brought to the party. People can point out their favorite bugaboo as the cause, and there are plenty of bugaboos here to choose from, but it's really the sum of his experience.

[mr blur]

9. I wsh I could Rec this post! (nt)

[arcane1]

2. Thank you. That toxic culture fucks up men and boys of all kinds, in all kinds of ways.

If he had killed himself instead of going on a murder spree, the situation would be looked at differently.

(Disclaimer: I am in no way intending to lessen his responsibility for his actions, I'm just trying to understand what led him to commit those crimes)

[REP]

4. I agree but many may not be thinking so deeply

I don't mean here; I mean in the media and in general. But when I heard the reports that he may have had online profiles on gay dating sites and may have been visiting the bar for years, I thought how he may have been taught from birth to hate what he may have felt, and how that can fuck with someone. Any sympathy ends the minute he harmed another person, though. But it could be a part of the puzzle of how this man's mind broke so badly.

[RobertEarl]

5. IOW

I can just hear the good ol' boys now: It was just a bunch of gays that got shot. I will dread that moment when it comes, but it is coming.

If it had been a police station, or a military base, or a KKK rally that was shot up, the laws would have been changed yesterday.

Instead, our culture deems it not that big a deal. Oh, they know it was wrong, but in denial of the cultures' ways of using guns to right perceived wrongs, they look the other way because, well, they weren't like us.

[Prism]

6. Not true. Fort Hood

The shooter there, who killed 13 people on a military base, had ties to Anwar al-Awlaki.

Gun rights overpower even anti-Muslim and pro-military sentiment.

I feel like, as a nation, we're in the grips of some kind of mania.

[RobertEarl]

7. And guns were illegal there, too

Now the military has ramped up its gun laws and enforcement, so we can say laws were passed for them, but not the general public.

The extent of this crime makes this one different for the rest of us. Who is next should be on all our minds. No place is safe.

[Prism]

8. You make an excellent point.

Now the military has ramped up its gun laws and enforcement, so we can say laws were passed for them, but not the general public.

I stand corrected.

[meow2u3]

12. It seems as if the point you're making

is that it's not that what's done (a mass shooting), it's who shot whom. I've also been saying that if a woman or a member of a minority group mowed down a bunch of right-wing white rednecks or Republican legislators, gun regulations would have been passed yesterday.

[markpkessinger]

15. Did you even bother to read my post beyond the headline?

Nobody is denying that the shooter's religion had something to do with this. The argument I have made since the beginning, however, is that the act wasn't necessarily part of some Jihadist agenda. There IS a difference!

[Bluenorthwest]

10. But claiming he killed 'because he was gay' while declaring that all repressive cultural factors

had nothing to do with it is what most on DU have been doing and that is the opposite of what you present here. I think you KNOW that. And that bothers me greatly, mark.

DU says hetero-normative religion is innocent his family and cultural background unrelated to his actions, his fathers hateful anti gay words unimportant and so on.

So actually mark, blaming the victims while denying the stated motive of the murderer as well as his entire background is homophobic. Very much so.

Presenting conjecture as fact is always wrong. Always. Doing so with great certainty in order to avoid finding the truth is a moral failure.

[markpkessinger]

14. Who has said that he "killed because he was gay" or that "repressive cultural factors" ...

... had nothing to do with it?

My argument has never been that his religion had nothing to do with it. My argument has been that his act was not necessarily part of some wider Islamic jihad. There's a difference, you know.

[closeupready]

13. Good post. If you're generating controversy/heat, likely you've struck gold.

Esp. if you are a minority member talking generally about your own minority group. K&R