I found some insight in your last sentence, but on examination it feels myopically specious like so much political discourse. The invocation of "left" and "right" are always put forth as some overriding distinction, but the actual dividing line for the issues in your comment is whether policies were palatable to big business, regardless of whether out of immediate financial self interest or to divide the plebs over social issues.

That dynamic is kind of inevitable when you buy into someone else's battle for your own win condition. Falling for the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" dynamic was never going to result in a good outcome. But the same lack of benefits of "winning" apply to the "left" as well - the majority is still heteronormative, and so doesn't directly benefit from societal acceptance of homosexuality. So in reality the grassroots of both tribes are mostly looking at symbolic victories that don't convey direct benefits, and directing focusing on a single one is just further stirring the pot.

(And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).

As a straight white dude I still benefit from living in a world with more social equality and less division.

But sure, it's less tangible than the rich benefitting from sucking up all the money.

There are tangible reasons for social progress as well, like for example in a world where women aren't pressured to be closeted I don't have to worry about marrying a lesbian who's trying to fit in.

But rather than iterate the reasons we all benefit from living in a world with acceptance, it feels like enough to support it on principle.

> rather than iterate the reasons we all benefit from living in a world with acceptance, it feels like enough to support it on principle

>> (And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).

Sure. This type of comment is exactly what I meant by the last bit I said. Including a summary of one team's well-reasoned support for a topic is also one-sided stirring the pot, regardless of whether one agrees with the argument specifically (which I do).

(The "right" would make an analogous argument about trickle down economics and how things would be so much worse for the grassroots right if big business was further constrained in any way)