Interpreting the Signs
First, here’s Douglas Wilson in typically rumbustious form:
In a real battle, the point is to make your adversary embarrassed by his signs and your own people proud of theirs. And this is why all the big city shame parades are called pride events. I don’t know. When a middle-aged guy in a thong and a feather boa prances out of the Castro District for the big event, the word pride is not the first thing that should pop into your head. The phrase ludicrous fatuity is more like it — but the reason he gets away with it is that he is covered by more than that leopard spotted thong. He is “covered” with all the culturally assigned signs and symbols. He is covered over completely by a big metaphorical rainbow sheet.
And then the Spectator’s Ed West:
It’s almost as if making life more fun for powerful men is the whole point of social justice liberalism these days.
And there you have it.
The observation I would add is that because of the above, ‘siding’ with SSM is now the one utterly failsafe and completely cost free route to obtaining social righteousness. A rainbow avatar identifies those who can be considered legitimate members of society and conveys a sense of moral uprightness. Yet at the same time, because ressentiment has been such a key weapon in the armoury for gay equality, adopting the rainbow avatar still masquerades as being in someway daring and edgy. The symbol is potent, it wraps ludicrous fatuity in respectability, and provides more fun for powerful men while claiming to bring liberty only to the downtrodden. And to think that of all the symbols that could have been adopted to do that, it is the rainbow - words fail.