How "edgy" kids become Neo Nazis, and how they can stop

            Last night I saw photos of swastikas that had been spray painted onto Wilbur Cross High School’s athletic complex, accompanied by the (misspelled) word “Trump.” This happened in the same town where I went to high school and college. It wasn’t surprising, but unnerving to see so close to home. No one knows who did it. This could be the work of committed Neo Nazis, and an unsettling indication that they’re operating in Connecticut. However, I have a strong inkling that it was the work of wannabe-edgy kids who thought it would be a funny prank.

            The latter would not, in any way, be excusable. But here on the left, some of us have a tendency to say that everyone drawing swastikas is the same. While not justifying the behavior, I think it’s helpful to examine the different motives so we can dismantle its foundation, wherever it comes from.

            I believe there are two groups of people defacing public property with racist and anti-Semitic graffiti. One group consists of adult Neo Nazis who are dedicated, zealous, and possibly physically violent. The other group consists of a distinct subset of nihilistic young people who want to be rebels. The second demographic can easily grow into the first. 

            I was one of those teenagers. I personally didn't do all of the following things, but this was our general demeanor: We were the kids who called others “sheeple.” Our attitude was, “Caring about stuff isn’t cool. Nothing really matters, and committing yourself to ideals is lame” (not acknowledging that spray painting graffiti or spending hours trolling online forums is commitment). We generally saw efforts to be culturally sensitive as self-righteous “political correctness,” and thought it was disingenuous. That being said, we didn’t consider ourselves the traditionally conservative right. We disliked patriotism, Christianity, police, and the military, but our reasons differed from why many liberals may distrust those institutions. Our objections were based on resentment of authority and disdain for anything impassioned. Back in the early 2000s, we hated Bush just as much as we liked Eric Cartman. We didn’t think homosexuality was immoral, but we thought it was funny to call straight people "fags" as a general term for "annoying person." And we saw this mentality as unique and independent, despite the fact that popular TV shows and entire lines of merchandize catered to us. 

            An ironic aspect was that while many of us tried to echo Nietzsche, we fundamentally misunderstood what he was about. Nietzsche may have believed life to be meaningless, but not worthless. He thought we could ascribe our own meanings. He may have stared into the abyss, but he didn’t romanticize it.

            Although these kids scoff at enthusiastic ideals, they can be recruited into the Alt-Right if convinced that it’s countercultural and will offend the perceived rigid morality of the left. It appeals to their bitterness, as they see themselves as dispassionate but deny that bitterness is emotional. It appeals to their hatred of the more authoritarian branches of the left. In order to make any headway with this young crowd, we have to acknowledge that such a type of authoritarianism exists. It’s not the majority of liberals, but it does manifest in those who promote heavy censorship and want people arrested for expressing regressive beliefs. It exists in those who defend Communist dictators (whether or not they view them as true Communists), and those who think it’s useless to be liberal unless you’re radicalized. The Alt-Right reaches out to people with resentments of those things, and molds them from cynics to ardent zealots.

            While I was never a KKK or Neo Nazi sympathizer, I was certainly a cynic. I thought being offended was worse than being offensive. I thought it made me look tough to flippantly joke about suicide, self-mutilation, and rape, namely because those things had impacted my life. At the same time, this demeanor was something I aspired to more than something I actually was. In my eyes, it was armor more so than a weapon, although in practice it was both. It was a defense against trauma and severe depression, but the “nothing matters” stance made my depression a lot worse.

            At that point in life I would occasionally see swastikas drawn on walls, usually accompanied by pentagrams and a hastily scrawled “Hail Satan.” I never did this myself, but I didn’t take it seriously. It seemed like a parody. I regarded Nazis as equally alien and mythical as Satan. Some of the offenders who defaced walls with these symbols probably saw it the same way. While the "edgy" kids' brand of so-called humor and graffiti mimics that of self-proclaimed Nazis, I think this is the difference: People who define themselves as Nazis and are adamant about that cause are more likely to commit physical violence and to run for public office so they can enforce those ideas. People who see it as a joke are behaving terribly, but it may be easier to change their minds.

            One person who didn’t see this as a parody was my grandmother, Kiki, a child of Russian immigrants who came to the US to escape pogroms. She was not a Holocaust survivor, but she was a survivor of the Holocaust era. This happened in her most formative years. Kiki remembered that when news of the Holocaust first broke out, many Americans disbelieved it. They thought it was a paranoid conspiracy theory or a grand-scale tasteless joke. Then the photos and the interviews came out. Then the survivors started talking.

            My grandpa, Harold, recalled that many of the WWII servicemen didn’t consider their fight a noble defense of the Jews. A great deal were anti-Semitic themselves. When he first joined the Air Force at seventeen, an interviewer asked if he would defend the United States no matter what. He responded with “Not if it becomes fascist,” and was given two weeks of extra training for that answer. As a Depression-era Jew, he couldn’t afford the naïve jingoism that the government and media were selling.

            When I was very small, Kiki told me, “If somebody ever asks you what your religion is, never say that you’re Jewish. They will hate you for it, and they can put you on a list.” At the time, I thought that sounded crazy. Growing up, I was sometimes called a Jew as an insult. It used to just confuse me because it seemed so outdated, and because I didn’t even observe the religion. But to an anti-Semite, simply having Jewish heritage is enough to label you an enemy. I was largely ignorant about oppression because although I was recognized as Jewish, I was also white and upper middle class.

            Back in high school, Kiki and I had discussed affirmative action. I thought it was unnecessary, believing that systemic racism no longer existed. Kiki told me it was a way to level the playing field. She had witnessed so much discrimination toward other races during her youth that it was impossible for her to think that would disappear over one lifetime. She relayed stories of competition and hierarchies. Some of the Jewish people she’d known had ostracized other races because they wanted a group to socially one-up. They saw it in terms like, “We’re Jewish, but at least we’re not black.” Others were afraid to socially engage with other targeted groups because they didn’t want to be further persecuted by proxy. Kiki always hated this, and said that pitting marginalized groups against one another was one of the worst crimes of the elite. She believed all disenfranchised people should support each other. I didn’t know the concept at the time, but she was talking about intersectionality.

            Kiki and Harold influenced me more than they knew. I disagreed throughout my childhood and adolescence, but came around to their way of thinking in later years. I decided to make an effort to listen to the experiences of marginalized people, rather than dismiss their concerns as paranoia. I took classes on the intersections of gender, race, and class. My beliefs are not perfect, but I’m learning and unlearning. The things my grandparents said have been confirmed time and time again. In the wake of a Trump presidency, their words continue to resonate.

            After moving to Milford in 2008, I noticed anti-Semitic graffiti in the train station bathroom. Someone had written “Fuck Jews.” I took out a Sharpie and added, “Consensually.” Another time I was in a local diner and overheard a slew of teenagers making loud, bigoted jokes. One of them shouted out, “Yo, let’s get a bunch of Jews and throw them in a gas chamber and make them fuck each other in the ass!” I called out, “You’d like that, motherfuhrers.” They didn’t get the joke. Sometimes it works to deflect the situation with humor, to show how absurd the bigotry is. Other times, different approaches are in order.

            The kids in the diner seemed a lot farther gone than nihilistic. But kids who are nihilistic can change. Essentially, they are at a crossroad. They can be steered in the direction of passion; either the kind that’s progressive or that leaves a legacy of damage. To grow, they need to learn that opposing bigotry is subversive. They have to see that oppression is real and not an expression of tongue-in-cheek irony. They need to know people of the groups that are affected. They can grow by reading history and knowing it’s not restricted to the past. And they need to know that even if they believe ignorant things now, they’re not a hopeless case.

          Life, after all, isn’t pointless. Even Nietzsche didn’t think so.

The Nazi room

Some friends have said that they regret using Facebook because it makes them like their peers less. That someone they would probably like in person becomes someone they can’t stand because of the opinions they post. I understand this sentiment, and at times I can relate to it. But at the same time, it’s hard to believe that somebody’s defining beliefs and overall worldview would never be expressed face to face if you know them well enough. And if they are hiding certain values, I’m not sure I’d rather be unaware of what those values are.

In the past, I have written that there is no single “true” self. People are multifaceted, and we can be kinder and more complicated than our belief systems. I don’t believe that a human necessarily has only one set of values; they can have several at odds with one another. But even if their values aren’t a neatly matching set, others can still feel alienated by a particular belief they have—even with the awareness that it isn’t their only belief. I know I will distance myself from a person if they express specific beliefs, just as I know I’m not exempt from alienating others with mine.

The internet is a paradoxical place. It’s a space where humans are bolder and more confrontational about expressing themselves, and at the same time more cautious if their words are for public consumption. It’s a place where individuals can perform a one-dimensional version of themselves, and where they can also share sides of their psyche that are not usually seen. It’s a meeting ground where people dismiss each other more readily because it’s easier to see a human as a set of pixels or an algorithm, but people also might offer each other more time. Because the online world is us, an outgrowth of both space and time.

Just as the internet is people and the internet is a place, people are places. Some are homes. Some are locations we think are homes, but turn out to be stops along the way. Some are havens we visit routinely, but where we don’t ultimately live. That’s why I think of a personality as a house. Some houses have consistent themes throughout. Those homes are cozy and predictable. Some prefer that, others find it dull. Some houses are neat and affable in the rooms that are meant for showcasing, but complete chaos in the private quarters. And others don’t hide their mess.

This is the type of home I’d find most disconcerting: The social, guest-receiving rooms are open and embracing. The living room contains an MLK poster and books about environmentalism and civil rights. Then, somewhere tucked far down a hallway, there’s a study full of KKK propaganda and Nazi memorabilia. The resident is flustered upon guests discovering it, but insists it’s “not a racist thing.” They say they have no problem with (X minority group), they just “don’t want them in their country.” (So what does “having no problem with them” mean? Not objecting to their basic existence, provided that existence occurs far away and they never have to inhabit the same space?) The person who owns and maintains this house may not see the space dedicated to bigotry as their “true” room. They may see it as just one coexisting with all the others, no more of a core space than anywhere else. They may even like to have minority friends in the house; just not in that area. But the guests who liked the main quarters won’t feel comfortable there anymore, and it would be especially scary if the house was a place where they’d regularly enjoyed spending time.

That figurative house is who some people are. Some may not actually be aware that they contain that specific room. Others might know about it but blame others for putting the contents inside, not acknowledging that they choose to hold onto those things. And I know my definition of welcoming is subjective; some would feel a lot more embraced in the bigotry room than in the main socially presented areas. But that is how I see it, and I think the internet provides a window into rooms that might not otherwise be seen—even by those who live in the house. The difference lies in whether or not the homeowner justifies that room; whether they respond to its discovery by more carefully hiding the contents, by bringing them out into the open, or by trying to renovate.

Consistency is overrated

During election season, there are often sound bites passed around which depict a candidate saying something offensive when they were significantly younger, sometimes in their twenties or even their teens. The takeaway message is always, “Is this the kind of person you want in office?”

I understand the validity of this if the candidate still expresses the same attitudes today, and so it’s meant to show that they haven’t grown. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Almost always, it’s meant to imply that an opinion someone holds in their youth is a defining part of their permanent nature. That assumption is not only unfounded, but unfair. How many of us cringe when we recall insensitive, bigoted, or just plain ignorant things we said when we were younger? Everyone deserves a chance to be seen as a more evolved version of our former selves, as long as we actively demonstrate it and denounce the harmful things we used to espouse. In that case, changing your mind isn’t hypocrisy. It’s maturation.

If the candidate is known for flip-flopping, that’s another story. Tailoring your core values to your audience, rather than just adjusting the presentation, is dishonesty. That deserves to be called out. All the same, I think it’s rarely relevant to try to prove a point by showing a clip of someone being foolish in college.

This relates to the way that consistency is falsely assumed because it's so overvalued. You hear a lot of quotes like, “Don’t make fun of other peoples’ appearance when you’re not attractive yourself” or “Don’t use the Bible to be homophobic unless you follow all of its rules.” Why is being hateful toward the LGBT+ community somehow more acceptable if you’re religiously consistent? Why is it more excusable to harass people about their looks if you are traditionally attractive?

It’s better not to hold horrible beliefs at all, whether or not they’re consistent with other behavior or with beliefs one has held in the past. Unfortunately, the allegiance to sameness—even sameness to your self—can cause many to stubbornly cling to bad ideas.

You don't have to listen.

One narrative that sounds pretty silly upon examination is, "You can't just delete anyone from your friends list who disagrees with you! Real life doesn't work like that." I understand the message; that it's impossible to avoid interacting with others who have a clashing worldview. That's true, but is rarely a person's actual goal.

We all know people we disagree with fundamentally on a variety of topics, and with whom we share virtually no values. Working, going to school with, and living among them is a necessary facet of belonging to human society. Learning how to talk to people we don't agree with is an important skill. But that doesn't mean we're obligated to listen to hateful, willfully ignorant, and destructive ideas in a setting where that's actually optional. I don't believe that every opinion that opposes mine is harmful, nor am I certain that I'm correct about everything. But I have blocked, deleted, and sometimes just unfollowed people for repeatedly posting malicious things. Opinions like "females are thots", "[X minority racial group] are disgusting," "Gay people deserve to be murdered," "Jews are greedy" and "Poor people are lazy moochers" are not nuanced, original ideas I've never previously been exposed to. They're so common that they're longstanding stereotypes. Saying you hate a group or that they should die/be severely punished for their existence is not an argument. Calling a group a name is not an argument; it's just a slur. Granted, that may also apply to calling certain ideologies bigoted—that saying they're bigoted isn't making an argument; just calling a name—and maybe I'm less likely to notice that because of my own biases. But when I say something is bigoted, I'm probably venting instead of trying to persuade others to agree, because it doesn't seem possible to persuade someone who's just shouting slurs. The slur-shouters honestly think they have a valid theory you need to hear, though, and that you're doing yourself a disservice by closing that channel. They also seem to think their ideas are unique and rebellious. Those who disagree are well aware that a more progressive stance is not unusual, and that it doesn't have to be unique to have value.

Racist mentalities can change with shifting values, not just "an appeal to the facts."

Facts won’t dissuade people who are stubbornly invested in racism. The fact that Freddie Gray’s death was ruled a second degree murder and that six cops have been arrested won’t mean anything to them. The fact that his arrest was deemed illegal won’t make a difference. They will be unmoved by the fact that even Fox News of all networks is now acknowledging this happened. They’ll still say, “Oh, that ruling was only made to appease the black people. More proof that they’re privileged and oppressing whites.” I’ve heard this point of view expressed loudly from white people who are still somehow convinced that they’re “not allowed” to say it. I’ve also seen Fox’s desperate scramble to try to imply that this wasn’t a race issue because several of the cops involved were non-white. Those accepting this explanation don’t recognize internalized racism and how, in the end, it still serves white supremacist aims.

Talking about this is not “making it about race.” It was already about race and class; talking about that is just acknowledging it. And it’s funny how CNN commenters will make that claim, yet think that making sweeping criticisms of the black population and accusing them of “separating themselves” is somehow not making it about race. This public discussion, of course, is littered by cries of “Why do you have to keep bringing up the past?” Abridged answer: Because the past leaks into the present and future, and because talking about history is a way of recognizing patterns. It’s noticeable how the white people who say they feel no guilt or responsibility for things that other white people did throughout history are the ones who feel so threatened by others bringing up that past. If they really thought it had nothing to do with them, they wouldn’t get defensive.

It’s not hard to be a white person, whatever some might say. I can understand how it might be really hard to be a cop at this time—not a white cop specifically, but a cop in general. It probably feels like people are making assumptions or that these kinds of posts are directed at them individually. But if a cop is not doing or supporting these things, then these posts don’t apply to them. And part of being a progressive, helpful cop is not only refraining from corruption and abuse, but reporting it when they see it in other officers. Part of it is not immediately assuming that another officer must have been in the right, but taking a careful and honest look at what they did. And it’s recognizing that those of us who are against this are not necessarily “against all cops” or solely blaming police officers, but seeing that the police abuse that does exist is part of a larger pattern of oppression. It’s also recognizing that while it may be hard to be a police officer, it’s a much greater challenge to live as a non-white person in America—and yes, there are also those who fit both categories. They need to be recognized, but not used as tokens to derail the topic.

Facts won’t matter to everyone, but that doesn’t mean that those who won’t accept facts are hopeless. Before they can be receptive, they need to come to a point where they no longer feel inclined to cling to white defensiveness (whether or not they are white). That turning point may differ from person to person, but the results are the same and will lead to a true and healthy unity.

Seeds

I work at a children's museum and I love the conversations with toddlers. They can be hilarious or incredibly fascinating. But once in a while I hear something jarring and know I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still alarming to hear such ideas from someone who's barely more than a baby.

The other week I was in the arts and crafts area, cutting out shapes for kids to draw on, when a talkative girl sat beside me and began asking questions. She couldn't have been older than three. She was wearing glasses, and I'm a complete sucker for bespectacled toddlers. When I see oversized glasses on a tiny face, I pretty much overdose on cuteness. She was very precocious for her age.

"Excuse me," she prompted, "What do you do when everybody leaves? You and the other people who work here? Do you go home?"

"We close up the place, and then we go home," I told her.

"What do you do to close it?" she asked.

"We clean up, and then we leave, and then somebody turns off the lights and locks the doors before everyone leaves."

She wrinkled her tiny nose and looked puzzled. "But if somebody locks the doors, don't they get stuck inside?"

Amused, I explained that locks work two ways; they can be used to keep others out. She picked up a brochure for the museum and studied it with intense fascination.

"Who are the people in these pictures?" she asked.

"They're people who have visited the museum," I told her. "Pictures of people doing fun things here."

Her eyes widened. "Real people? Ones who are still alive?"

I laughed. "Of course they're still alive! And yeah, they're real people. Kids just like you. You could even be in one of those pictures!"

She seemed really excited about that idea and pored over the photos, seeing if she could spot herself anywhere. Then she returned to her art project, which she was carefully wrapping in tin foil and taping together. It was open on one side like a pocket.

"Are you making a purse?" I asked.

"No, I'm wrapping this up for my mommy. But I don't think I can take it home, because it needs more tape." She paused. "What do you do with the things that we leave here? Do you keep it for us or do you throw it away?"

"I can keep that safe for you until you come back, if you want to leave it here," I said.

She seemed pacified by that. "I'm going to give it to my mommy," she said. "She'll have to lock it up with all her special things. She locks up all her important stuff so our maid can't find it, because the maid only speaks a little bit of English, so mommy says she can't trust her. She says Spanish people steal things."

It shouldn't have come as a shock, but it did. I struggled for the right response. I couldn't just let that one go, but couldn't exactly say, "Well, your mommy's full of crap and she sounds racist."

"A lot of Spanish people don't steal things," I said to her. "And a lot of people who speak English do." Like whole cultures. "Anybody who speaks any language can steal things. That's why they have a word for 'steal' in every language."

"Oh. Yeah, they do." She shrugged and kept taping the tin foil. When it was time for her to go, she asked me my name and I told her. Then she told me hers and said, "Thank you for talking to me." I smiled and shook her hand.

I haven't been able to shake that exchange. She is such a strikingly smart little girl, probably not even out of diapers but asking about the structure of our program. I couldn't believe how articulate she is for her age. But her mother is sowing the seeds of bigotry in that brand new mind, and her daughter doesn't even know what it means. She probably has no idea that "Spanish" has ethnic connotations, or a concept of what race even is. But she's a white child with a maid, and her mother is training her to distrust that woman. It's so strange to see where it starts, and how many people never question it. How people grow up only parroting what they're told and taking it for granted because someone older than them said it was true.

I don't know if I responded the right way. She could take the wrong conclusion from what I said. I wonder if she'll continue to believe that all "Spanish" people steal, but decide that everyone else does, too. Maybe I could have said more, or less. I don't know. My hope lies in the possibility that she'll come to a more open way of thinking--regardless of where she learns it. Maybe her mother will serve as an example of what not to do.

She's so cute, so inquisitive, so smart. So impressionable. Advanced in many ways, but severely held back in another--and, at two or three years old, that's no fault of her own. But it becomes somebody's responsibility once they're old enough to know better and choose not to know. Once they're echoing those sentiments to their own children.

I hope she'll break the cycle. She can, as long as she keeps asking questions.

Mascots and respectability politics

There's a popular criticism of marginalized groups: "If you don't want to be stereotyped, then don't be a stereotype." I used to parrot that mantra when I was younger, but now I hate it. It places the onus of preventing discrimination on the people who are being discriminated against. It assumes the abuse and disenfranchisement they face must be based on their own behavior, whether or not the speaker would go so far as to say they "deserve" it. But people in positions of power, both social and financial, are always looking for excuses to step on the hands of those below them on the ladder, and those underneath them are not there of their own volition. People invested in maintaining privilege—which does not mean preserving the luxuries they have, but aggressively denying those same advantages to others—will stereotype and dehumanize those they see as inferior, regardless of how hard the ones they're targeting try to seem "respectable." If they can't find a reason to stereotype, they will invent one. And even if somebody of that group does match a negative caricature and is rejected on that basis, it's still completely unfair to believe they are at fault for their entire group being attacked and dismissed. To believe that is to make the individual into the mascot of their whole group. Seeing one person as wholly representative is deeply harmful in itself, whether they're regarded as a positive or negative symbol. But if someone is determined to find an unflattering mascot for a group, then it shows they were already committed to stereotyping them harshly, long before they actually found a person to confirm their prejudices.
              A related thought: many privileged people seem to think they're not bigoted as long as the stereotypes they assign to disadvantaged groups are blamed on "cultural problems," rather than biology. But saying that a disempowered group is to blame for their own struggles because of a "cultural problem" (within their own culture, rather than the dominant one) is really no less bigoted than saying they're genetically inferior, because the former explanation entails the belief that all of their problems result from their own choices. It's saying that the populace in question has a collective attitude problem.

Popular defenses for bigotry, and why they don't work

Two of the most ill-informed defenses of homophobia, racism, and general bigotry: 1) "Why should their beliefs be challenged? What they believe is their own business and their own right," and 2) "What's so wrong with taking your own side?"

The first excuse might hold a little more weight if bigotry toward marginalized groups were entirely self-contained and didn't actually affect said groups. But in reality, these attitudes don't exist in a vacuum. They have a huge impact on the way members of privileged groups treat other people. It makes a difference not only in interactions, but also voting habits and laws. Additionally, it influences the way parents raise their children. Raising a child with bigotry not only perpetuates the cycle; it also has hugely damaging consequences if the kid happens to be a member of a group that the parents hate. An obvious example would be homophobic parents of a gay kid. And following up the "How is it anybody else's business?" defense with "They have a right to their own beliefs, so their opinions shouldn't be challenged" is based on a glaring misconception. It falsely equates having the right to your own beliefs with having the "right" to live one's entire life without ever hearing those beliefs questioned. Yes, people have the right to be as bigoted as they please, but it's still a terrible perspective. And the freedom of speech afforded to those of us who are averse to such bigotry means that we have the right to openly disagree.

The second argument, "What's wrong with taking your own side?", is less of an excuse and more of an outright attempt at justification. When a member of a privileged class decides to attack those who are unprivileged, they are not "taking their own side." They are targeting marginalized groups of which they are not a part. You can care about the safety and well-being of people in your own group without being hostile toward outsiders. But misogynistic, white supremacist, classist, and LGBT-phobic people always define themselves by their hatred of disadvantaged populations, rather than defining themselves simply by their concern for straight, rich, non-trans, and white peers (who are not being collectively oppressed for those traits, even if they have problems as individuals). And in calling that "their own side," they are the ones conflating white people with white supremacy, straight people with homophobia, men with misogyny, rich people with classism, cisgender (non-trans) people with transphobia, and more. It's ironic, because that's exactly what they accuse their critics of doing.

Representation and racism

A pattern I notice in popular entertainment and public responses to it:

There's a TV show with a diverse or semi-diverse cast. Or maybe not even diverse; they might be all white except for one black actor. A white viewer complains that the show is "too PC" essentially because it's not entirely composed of white people. They accuse the show or casting director of "pandering" or "caving to political correctness”—again, because not every single face on the show is white. Said viewer speculates that the racial minorities on the show were only cast because of their race and couldn't possibly have earned it by being the best actors for the roles. They call it "reverse racism."

In response to being made to feel unwanted in mainstream entertainment, non-white actors and entertainers create their own spaces and their own shows which predominantly feature racial minorities because they want fair representation that isn't received with bigotry. They want to feel welcome and have fellow ethnic minorities feel welcome, too. The same white viewer who didn't want to see them in mainstream entertainment now accuses them of excluding white people and "separating themselves."

This demonstrates that there are some white folks who just don't want to see non-whites represented anywhere in media, whether it's within an integrated cast or in their own.

If you're a white person who wants to say that you'd never respond this way, then this analogy doesn't apply to you. But even if it doesn't, I'd recommend that you please not jump to the "not all white people" defense. It really doesn't help the situation.

"Family values"?

People do not genuinely care about "family values" if they only value one type of family. Media, politicians, and organizations that pride themselves on being "family friendly" are often blatantly unfriendly to those that are nonreligious, non-white, ethnically mixed, living in poverty, or consisting of same sex parents or a single parent (especially a single mom). Also, encouraging procreation is not the same as being pro family. You can support the decision to have children and care about the well being of families, but many people seem concerned with the former and not the latter.

Islamophobia and racism

Many will say that anti-Islamic sentiment is about objection to the religion, rather than about racism, because Islam is a religion and not a race. I used to say the same thing. But while Islam itself is not an ethnicity, it's closely associated with brown-skinned people and therefore Islamophobia involves a lot of racial profiling. Islamophobes tend to have a much bigger issue with race than with the actual beliefs of extremist, fundamentalist Islam. If they genuinely had a problem with the misogyny, homophobia, and justification for violence that exists in the fundamentalist sects of pretty much every religion, then they would have an equal objection to white fundamentalist Christians who hold those same attitudes. And yes, I know that not all Christian fundamentalists are white. Bigots usually excuse the white ones, though, or at least grant them far more leeway.

Intersections

Anti-poor and anti-gay attitudes often echo one another's talking points.

People who are classist and those who are homophobic (and many are both) believe they are choices; that they're the fault of those who are oppressed for living with the labels. Bigoted individuals insist that a person's financial circumstances, sexual orientation, and gender identity can be easily changed at will. They believe people choose those identities or those stations in life out of laziness, fear, or a desire for "special rights" and validation. They honestly think that being LGBT or being poor are privileged statuses that shield people from any kind of accountability. This perspective insists that those who fall under both umbrellas are pampered, attention-seeking brats who refuse to live as adults.

Gay, bisexual, trans, and non-gender conforming identities would exist regardless of society's attitudes about them*, and there would be no danger to living as a LGBT person if those negative attitudes didn't exist. Poverty, however, is a social construct--and by that, I don't mean it's any less real, but that it only exists because people cause it to. Layers of oppression cause and perpetuate poverty. But people are judged as responsible not only for their financial struggles and for their gender and sexual orientations, but for others' reactions to it as well.

              There are, of course, straight people living in poverty who espouse anti-LGBT beliefs, and financially well-off LGBT individuals who look down on the poor (although it's worth noting that the common perception of gay people as affluent is largely a myth). But both groups are discriminated against on the same basis, even if members of those groups sometimes discriminate against one another.

Anyone who knows what it's like to be poor is painfully aware that nobody would willingly choose it. Where's the "luxury" in putting off going to see a doctor as your health takes a nosedive, and then ending up spending more on emergency care? Where's the luxury in having to decide whether grabbing so much as a Snapple or a cup of coffee is worth the indulgence, even if it's your only frivolity of the week, and then having to answer to a frustrated spouse if you do choose to spend that money? And then seeing the guilt and inner conflict on your partner's face because they want you to be able to enjoy such basic pleasures? Where's the luxury in having to constantly arrange your social outings around watered-down (or almost liquidated) finances and turning down invites when you would love nothing more than to go? Or living in terror of pregnancy, not because you don't love children or wouldn't want them, but because even providing for yourself is such a strain?

The same is true for being non-heterosexual or not fitting into a proscribed gender mold. Nobody would choose an orientation that's too controversial to be represented in most media because you are not "family friendly." No one would choose an identity that isolates you from family, friends, and ideologies which are deeply committed to not understanding. Nobody would opt to be seen as an objectified prop, either to bolster someone else's progressive credentials or to serve as an experiment for somebody who says they're just curious. It's so hurtful to be referred to as "practice." Practice for what? For a relationship with someone of another gender, because that's the only legitimate kind? For someone who says you're fun to hook up with and they love you as a person, but you're no more than a friend? Meanwhile, you want to draw their every mesmerizing feature and hand them bouquets of blooming words and show them all your favorite books and songs and know all of theirs in return. To bring them to all your treasured spaces, both tangible and mental, and bask in a shared world you can add to together. No person would ever choose an identity that's spat at and called immoral, even though nothing can be more moral than love.

If any of those examples sound autobiographical, it's because they are. They're all problems I have faced at different points in time, but those stories are not only mine. They belong to anyone who doesn't fit into the middle class and strictly heterosexual mold. People who think these are choices do not believe we face those kinds of struggles. They convince themselves that we live in taxpayer-funded bubbles of decadence, but they are the ones who live in insulated bubbles and are terrified of having their illusions popped.

*Gender norms are a social construct, but gender itself is not. Also, it's important to remember that sexual orientation and gender identity are separate things.

"-Isms" vs. individuals

There is often a problem, both in religion and in many other "-isms," of prioritizing one's philosophy over people. A lot of it seems to stem from the belief that whatever ideology you ascribe to, you have to swallow it whole. It's the unwillingness to examine the tenets and to reject ones that marginalize people and fly in the face of compassion. It's the immediate inclination to reject a person entirely because they differ on certain points of belief, and to decide they must be immoral because of it.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing the act of rejecting someone who holds oppressive views. For example, a person committed to anti-racism is absolutely justified in cutting off someone who expresses deeply racist beliefs. Such a perspective does active harm to others. But I know Christians who have ended friendships with other Christians for not believing in hell. I know socialists who refuse to engage with cohorts who espouse Marxism as opposed to Leninism. I know hardline atheists who don't want to talk to other atheists who are not interested in "de-converting" people. When you allow for no criticism of any part of your cause, you become too quick to dismiss others who differ on any points at all. Also, I think a sign of fanaticism is the belief that anyone who disagrees even slightly is the real fanatic.

They tell you not to pick and choose, but for a healthy perspective, you have to. Selectivity is not the problem. The problem is refusing to admit to being selective while demanding that others adhere to every orthodoxy. The problem is the parts that people select.

This is where the issue of tolerance comes in for me. Bigots love to accuse others of being hypocrites for not tolerating their bigotry. But here's the thing: I have never claimed that it's reasonable or productive to be tolerant of everything. I don't tolerate hate and stereotypes that are heaped on people for factors they can't control. It's petty to cry persecution after being criticized for a polarizing opinion. We can choose our opinions. We can't choose our race, gender, or sexual orientation, so I'm all for not rejecting anyone on the basis of those factors. However, it's reasonable to resolve to avoid oppressive people.

Marginalized groups don't create bigotry

Various forms of bigotry are very often excused by saying that a person only became a bigot after having a bad experience with (insert marginalized group here). But bad experiences are not responsible for such beliefs, because the person in question has most likely also had negative run-ins with those of dominant or privileged groups and did not hold those groups responsible.

This judgment is often made when a member of a persecuted population does something that matches a stereotype. A white person who has been assaulted by a racial minority could use that as justification to hate that ethnicity and say the stereotypes are true, but odds are that they've also been attacked by other white people, or known someone who has, and didn't decide that whites are violent. I've known straight people who were sexually assaulted by gay people and concluded that the gay community is mostly composed of rapists, but they don't look at all the hetero folks who commit rape and decide that straight people are sexual predators. I've known people who were cheated out of money by Jewish individuals and used that as justification for anti-Semitism, but they've also been swindled by plenty of non-Jewish peers and they don't associate financial scams with non-Jews.

This is not at all to say that a person from an oppressed group is justified in doing abusive or otherwise unethical things, or that they shouldn't face social/legal consequences for it. I'm saying that these behaviors are not due to their minority status. (Certain behaviors may be connected to oppression, such as a poor person who robs others out of desperation, but that's a topic for a whole other discussion.) To develop bigotry toward a disadvantaged populace because someone of that group has wronged you, you must have already believed stereotypes about them in order to make that connection and generalization. A person who does this while not holding dominant groups responsible for those same actions, and not assigning overall blame to dominant groups, does so because they see such people as the default—yet another example of their preexisting unawareness of privilege.