In a thread I made asking if life would be better for bisexuals if there was no Abrahamic religions. Some one said, “It's tricky, because something else similar very likely would have taken its place.Without getting too into the weeds of it, religions provide a bunch of different and positive things for people, and I think all the hateful, negative baggage attached to religion is the nasty side of humanity peeking through at the same time.The nasty side of humanity that injected hate into religions in the first place would still exist, and the need for some type of ideology, shared community, culture, rules, shared spirituality, etc. would also still exist and would be just as ripe for exploitation.”

And I said, “But the thing is there is no human nature. Humans are the products of their environment. Their material and social conditions. So ‘human nature’ evolves to fit these conditions. So if there were no homophobic Abrahamic religions to socialize hate, why hate? Do you really think hate is biological? Are you really that essentialist/deterministic? But I might be saying this as I’m reading Sartre’s ‘Search for a Method.’”

And it got downvoted. And I got a response telling me to diversify my reading to “understand people better.” But what I’m saying is not just Marxist sociology but also overlaps with much of sociology generally thanks to thinkers like Gramsci and Adorno. Saying that we’re products of our environment shouldn’t be controversial. Feminism talks all the time about socialization under the patriarchy. But as soon as you mention socialization under any other circumstances that’s some commie shit and bad in the eyes of the Overton window.