Hate is Inefficient
I'm a white man in America, who grew up in the upper rungs of the middle class. A life of country clubs, first class flights, club floors in resort hotels, and ever-larger homes. The impression such an upbringing gives you is one of hard work being handsomely rewarded (since my Dad worked every day, of every week, leaving before I woke up and getting home after dinner concluded), of merit being recognized, and of luxury being normal.
I'm also a gay man in America. This awakening happened after the "good days" of my youth, and contrasted sharply with my lived experiences to that point. Suddenly I was "wrong", "invalid", and "harmful" - not just to myself, but to my family as well. A gay son in a family who belonged to a Country Club? Scandalous! My existence was a pain point at a time when none could be tolerated, lest our tenuous position as a family be jeopardized. This was in the boom years of the 2000s, and unbeknownst to my teenage self, my father was struggling to maintain appearances and lifestyles against the continued tides of outsourcing, offshoring, and downsizing of the manufacturing sector he'd long found employment managing. My sexuality was problematic, because of the systems my parents utilized to get an edge professionally and socially.
As time went on and I was dragged to other homes and states to support the family's downturns, I was forced to accept the brutality of the real world outside of the "upper crust elite" I'd long been indoctrinated into. Life in a world where I could be evicted, denied services at banks or grocery stores, fired from my job, and otherwise "othered" into inescapable poverty solely because of my sexual orientation. This was the real world, one that hated me solely because of who I loved.
In essence, I was forced to live two wholly separate lives:
- A public life, where I "opted" to be single to focus on my career and remain flexible in my movement. Where I dressed conservatively in neutral colors, consumed masculine media, and bought masculine things. Where I kept my mouth shut and my head down, lest I risk being "outed" and ousted from the life I'd carefully built for myself.
- A private life online, where I could freely associate with those important to me, who could see me in a more authentic light than I could ever portray in public. Where I could write stories of the life I'd desired to lead, where I could seize opportunities I had to pass up, a fantasy where I had found love, partnership, and fulfillment through living authentically.
To this day, I still live these double lives. My public life has gradually become more "out" and authentic. I joined an LGBTQ+ group at work, proudly announced myself as a gay man, and even completed leadership development courses aimed at LGBTQ+ people. I've embraced my sexuality, at least to some fundamental degree. Yet the past trauma of being rejected by parents, by society, of having to hide myself in order to survive, it continues to hinder my growth as a person. I near forty never having had a boyfriend, only ever finding solace in groups who could offer protection as I explored myself with caution, constantly fearful of rejection.
As 2025 dawned and the present administration seized power, I found my fears justified. I was let go from my job around the same time as the administration began penalizing institutions for "DEI" initiatives. My employer gave the deliberately legally-defensible "reorganization" as the reasoning for my forced departure and at least had the consideration to give me severance and a runway rather than a security escort from the premises, but that didn't take the sting out of such an unexpected turn of events. My work wasn't in doubt (my leadership implemented my years-old ideas on hypervisor migrations and claimed credit for my showback initiatives the minute I'd signed my severance letter), but my sexuality felt like a net-liability to corporations kissing the ring of fascism, rather than an asset to those same companies looking to placate a populace demanding more inclusion. It suddenly it felt like my queerness was a liability again, in a country that had pivoted away from inclusion and back towards hostility. Regardless of intention or fact, the feeling was that my productivity was irrelevant, and my sexuality a critical factor in my future.
In my own mind, the cruelest master of them all, the layoff and surrounding events was perceived as such:
Who cared if the faggot had good ideas, did great work, and had sacrificed for the benefit of the company? They're still just a faggot.
The Myth of Merit
Proponents of the current economic system like to proclaim that merit should be (or is) the sole decider of compensation, promotion, and recognition by society. They point to their belief that the free market, constantly striving for optimal efficiency, would naturally push out intolerance and hatred in pursuit of better ideas, larger markets, lower prices, and more consumers. The crux of their argument is that, as the free market will inevitably correct itself, those of merit will similarly inevitably be recognized and rewarded for their contributions to said corrections. Thus a cycle of improvement and reward is created, ensuring that those who create positive value will eventually become leaders within the marketplace, and in turn the marketplace will eject those who lack the merit of positive value creation.
These proponents are wrong. They are wrong on meritocracy, and wrong on the free market. They are wrong because of an erroneous root assumption that the irrationality of the human animal is not a factor in either merit or markets, or that a "proper" free market and/or meritocracy can overcome the irrationality of humans.
The human animal has a long history of group conflict, especially with regards to the fabrication of zero-sum scenarios as justification for harm. The free market and associated meritocratic arguments are no different, as both are structures that are deliberately engineered to harm one cohort in order to benefit another, more acceptable one. The free market itself is a giant zero-sum fabrication, one that presently incentivizes waste, the creation of cartels and monopolies, and unethical behaviors to increase profits for the few Capitalists, not decrease costs or expand markets for the majority of consumers. Meritocracy is no different, promoting and recognizing those who align with the ruling classes, rather than those who provide objective value to society. A casual glance at the boardroom reveals a ruling class that's overwhelmingly straight white men, in a world that is decidedly not.
For all of the crowing about the need for DEI in the wake of George Floyd's murder (overlooking the convenient ignorance of Matthew Shepard or Harvey Milk's own murders in prior demands for equality, nevermind the multitude of heinous murders of blacks like the lynching of Emmit Till or assassinations of Malcom X and Fred Hampton before that), humans have been all too eager to throw it all out in favor of policing bathroom usage as determined by genitalia at birth and deporting immigrants back to the very countries destabilized by the ruling classes. The present circumstances are a tacit admission by those in power (both political and economic) and their supporters that the only people who have merit at all are rich, straight, white men, and that all others are subordinates (at best) or enemies of the state (at worst). Even modern Silicon Valley, built by the hacker outcasts and scapegoats of business or society at large, who found solace in STEM fields often neglected by heteronormative men at the time, now gleefully assist in the harassment and persecution of these "others" as a means of profitable enterprise, striking their claims of championing DEI from their corporate documents lest they be forced to actually support or defend their workers in a time of crisis.
For all of the bluster supporting meritocracy and free markets, the actual evidence shows their supporters are effectively shouting at passengers on the Titanic to bail out the water faster - while they coast away on lifeboats to safety.
The Real Free Market
That's not to say the logic of their arguments lacks...ahem, merit. In a vacuum, assuming it was a machine rather than an animal-governed system, yes, free markets would stamp out inequality and meritocracy would function perfectly. The problems aren't necessarily the systems themselves, but the human layers of management and intervention that manipulate them to individual ends over collective benefit. A free market desires a maximally-large marketplace in which to trade, and has no care for trivial details like sexuality, gender, class, or wealth; it only cares whether all consumers can afford said good at its maximum possible price. A free market - on paper - is perfectly efficient; it's humans that fuck it all up.
Think of the current vilification of the LGBTQ+ rainbow by religious nationalists and fascists. For all their crowing about the free market, why would they attempt to reduce its potential consumer size by removing persons from its participation? Why would they punish businesses with higher labor costs by allowing them to discriminate against minority groups? Both of these actions harm the market, and yet the humans in charge seemingly have no care about inflicting this harm.
The reason, at least one of the reasons I hypothesize, centers around control. Minority groups often evolve a form of public authenticity and counter-culture that rejects the norms of established ruling classes. They form shadow economies around conventions and small businesses, creating parallel supply chains outside the control of the ruling elite. It's not that free market promoters have an issue with the gays, but that they take offense at gays being allowed to succeed in areas controlled by existing corporate players. This same attitude applies to immigrant communities, the furry fandom, the sex industry, etc.: "we cannot profit from their identity, so they must be barred from having said identity in the first place." In the zero-sum market and society they've manufactured to rule over, these shadow economies are a direct threat to their survival.
This desire for control also applies to the means of production, which is another reason they vilify minority groups like the queer and the furries. We're communities of creators and artisans, creating the very goods we consume. Rather than funneling money into the hands of a corporate conglomerate owned by a handful of institutional shareholders who hoard the profits of a company that exploited its impoverished (and often outsourced) workers, these subcultures and minority groups constantly exchange it amongst themselves for new goods, new services, investing in one another when able to do so and seeking investment themselves in times of crisis. Modern ruling classes benefit significantly from the immense consolidation of industry over the past century, especially in the outsourcing of labor overseas and the creation of goods that must be replaced, never repaired; in direct contrast, minority groups often create goods that can be easily and endlessly repaired, often campaigning against waste and refusing to outsource what they can do themselves - or if they must outsource, choosing vendors that align with their values rather than whoever is cheapest. These groups teach their members how to create, mend, and repurpose, immeasurably valuable skills in an economy that has done everything in its power to eradicate said skills from all but the moneyed few.
In a very real sense, minority groups run better economies than the mainstream. They create content that satisfies their needs of representation, run conventions that bring their fellow fandom members together while benefiting surrounding communities, and constantly engage in a cycle of mutual aid and uplift that benefits everyone acting in good faith; no wonder they're being vilified by the sycophants of power. The real free market is at your local convention's or Pride Parade's Dealer's Den, not Wal-Mart, Target, or Amazon.
Sex Sells
Now is as good a time as any to detour into the controversial topic of SEX. An act so natural that it's required for biological evolution and procreation in most multicellular organisms, yet one that is vilified or controlled by the ruling class at its earliest opportunity. In the West especially, it's openly shamed and derided as sinful, evil even, particularly by religious adherents. It's even been said that Western shame and attitudes about sex is a threat to National Security.
As a reminder, the free market does not care about sexual attitudes or proclivities; if anything, the free market desperately wants to cater to every sexual kink or activity. The free market is amoral, and does not care about your personal hangups about a given fetish or kink so long as the activity itself is profitable.
The ruling class, however, absolutely does. Sex is the most intimate form of power any human can have over another. It's why there's a long, tragic history of humans using power over sex to engage in horrific acts against others: forcibly sterilizing undesirable women, executing or imprisoning sexual minorities, criminalizing non-heterosexual displays or acts (even in private!), enforcing racial apartheid, and terrorizing people through sexual assault. Nevermind less-horrific but still awful practices around the denigration of sex and gender in general, such as forced marriages, gendered discrimination, and reproductive restrictions that prioritize a specific gendered offspring over all others. We have over twelve thousand years of history showing the ruling classes using sex as the most harmful of cudgels to enforce their rule, often while hypocritically engaging in or associating with far more vile acts themselves.
The modern era is no different, albeit more "civilized" in its tactics. The ruling classes have shifted repeatedly in their opinions on the LGBTQ+ rainbow over the years, from outright hostility during the Cold War, to viewing them as tragic (ER S01E09) or comedic (Will & Grace), to championing their rights alongside the neurodivergent (Boston Legal) or stereotyping them outright (Queer Eye). Eventually their shifting attitudes culminated in a wave of pro-LGBTQ+ movements throughout the developed world, which seemed to shock them into attempting to roll back the clock and reclaim their power over sex. The irony being that as the ruling class attempted to reclaim said power, they had spent the past half-century selling it over, and over, and over, and over again via mass media, normalizing it within the broader populace.
They're attempting to close Pandora's Box.
Going back to the free market and meritocracy comparisons, this behavior makes no rational sense. Finally, the masses had been normalized into positive attitudes around sex (particularly young people). The free market had unlocked a multitude of new, profitable segments to expand into (sex toys, fetish gear, pharmaceuticals, sexual health items, cleaning products, plumbing appliances, etc), and meritocratic institutions could finally be freed of having to judge others based on their sexuality. Labor costs could decrease slightly as previously shunned LGBTQ+ persons could enter the workforce proudly and openly, while consumption of clothing and consumables would slightly increase as gendered stereotypes broke down and humans purchased (and wore) what they felt comfortable in, not what society arbitrarily dictated for them. Women could get a snappy three-piece suit that didn't make them look like Hillary Clinton, and men could cover blemishes or accentuate their features with makeup with being challenged on their "manhood" credentials. Everybody would have won. To try and undo this in favor of segmented markets and contracted labor pools makes no rational sense whatsoever.
And that's the point. The ruling class aren't rational. They're not proponents of a free market or a meritocracy, they're proponents of their markets and their meritocracies, both built on their criteria.
Freedom is Profitable
I want you to think about the most uncomfortable, ill-fitting clothing you've ever had to wear in your entire life for a moment. Maybe it was something your parents chose for you, maybe it was an outfit for a religious ceremony or formal event, or maybe it was a school uniform. Think about what you hated about it, what it represented that you didn't align with personally.
Now picture having to wear that every single day, or you'd be fired from your job, evicted from your home, and your bank accounts closed. That, at a minimum, is the level of discrimination cemented in a society that judges based on gendered or sexual expectations. It's a society that says your comfort is irrelevant. Really think about that conclusion for a moment, and all it entails. That you have no right to something as intrinsically human as comfort.
It's cruel, isn't it? Especially so for a Capitalist society that sells all manner of things to create, support, or amplify comfort. To deny an individual the ability to be comfortable is itself anti-human, not merely anti-Capitalist, and yet that is the expectation being levied upon minority groups by the current political climate. Despite the declining birth rate and need for more labor, the ruling classes and their supporters have deemed it acceptable to deny immigrants the ability to seek comfort in countries that desperately need them. Disregard the growing shadow markets of queer media and unorthodox subcultures, the ruling classes and their supporters have deemed it necessary to banish, incarcerate, and torture them for the crime of existing.
All of this is to say that the leaders supporting and demanding these harms are far from the free market or meritocratic champions they publicize themselves as. When companies walk back their DEI initiatives and lay off (or fire) their minority workers, they're openly advertising that they have no long term business skills or vision. When retailers abandon product lines from minority creators and businesses, that are targeting minority customers and clientele, they're advertising that they have no intention of running a profitable business themselves unless it's solely through the products offered by (and to) the state-approved majority.
To embrace minority groups is to embrace free market ideals at their core. It's to acknowledge the messiness of human existence, and accept the lack of a "standard" consumer. It's saying you won't dedicate resources to supporting hate and reducing your labor pool, constricting potential customers and sales, or bar the best talent from rising through the ranks of leadership. Embracing minority groups as equals is to embrace freedom itself - and freedom is always profitable.
Embracing hate is inefficient. It's antithetical to any real meritocracy, and to free market enterprise.
And history never forgets the collaborators in hate.
The Personal Cost
I want to touch on the bullet points of the first section again, the topic of double-lives lived. I feel like this is an attack point for detractors, pointing to some perceived economic benefit of my sexual repression in the sense I had to live two lives, and therefore spend more money to support them both. Allow me to dispel this notion entirely.
Living multiple lives - or rather, living an inauthentic life, is harmful. It has social, physical, financial, psychological, and time costs associated with doing so. It prevents an individual from operating at their peak capability, because a non-zero amount of their energy is being used to maintain deceptions for the sake of self-preservation; in other words, they survive by lying, rather than producing.
Several professions can thrive on this sort of lived deception, however. Unscrupulous salespeople, modern politicians, business leaders, religious icons, TV personalities, all of them can have successful careers because they can live a deception and sell their audience a suitable narrative. When we unmask these toxic individuals, we often (but not always) seek their expulsion, recognizing the harm such a skill can wreak upon society at large left unchecked and undisciplined.
It's for this very reason that persecuted persons suffer doubly-so: they must lie to survive, but also know that being caught in such a grand deception is just as harshly punishable by society. They're effectively damned if they're honest and authentic, and damned if they deceive through inauthentic lives and behaviors. The net result is a lifestyle often at either extremes of risk-taking: an overly-conservative lifestyle where few luxuries are had and most earnings are saved for long-term survival at any cost, or an overly-liberal lifestyle where no risk is too great to take on given that the outcome is imminent death regardless. In societies where hate is normalized, there is no safe, prosperous "middle ground" of productive authenticity, where risks are proportionate to reward and a cycle of capital reinvestment can form.
The Societal Cost
Nobody benefits from policies rooted in hate, at least not in the long term. Asset owners don't benefit, markets don't benefit, manufacturers don't benefit, and governments don't benefit. The more that hate forces groups into shadows, the worse the economy ultimately performs and the riskier its practices become. Those who are vilified for merely existing will inevitably find safe harbor elsewhere from groups more tolerant of their existence, and those groups will benefit from the added productivity and diversity said minorities bring with them. If you don't believe me, Albert Einstein and the Manhattan Project might persuade you otherwise; alternatively, consider Britain's present (lack of) technological leadership compared to the United States' and how their deplorable treatment of Alan Turing might have factored into that outcome.
Punishing hate and promoting authenticity, on the other hand, generates additional output and additional consumption, both of which are highly prized by society and economies alike. When landlords cannot discriminate against tenants, demand goes up as more tenants seek better housing opportunities, thus boosting housing quality. When cities cannot segregate their citizens, demographics are more likely to commingle and utilize shared services more effectively. When markets cannot deny consumers, they are forced to meet additional demand through the creation of additional supply, which in turn creates more jobs.
Forcing a gay man to stay closeted under threat of eviction by a religious landlord is a net harm to every party, directly or indirectly involved. The same applies to barring transgendered persons from bathrooms, preventing consenting adults from engaging in sexual activity, or policing dress and style based on outdated and unscientific gender stereotypes. Even ignoring the immediate economic effects of denying authenticity in matters of commerce, the added costs associated with mental health, lost productivity, increased precarity, and decreased investment make hate the worst policy anyone (or any entity) could implement.
Wrapping Up
As the United States continues its march toward authoritarianism and promotes policies of censorship and hatred, the sycophants running American enterprise and members of the ruling class are on the campaign trail, trying to convince an uninformed electorate that hatred is somehow good for business. It's not, but that's never stopped these monsters from being decisively wrong before. It should be plainly obvious that any "business leader" or politician claiming that prosperity can only come through hatred and violence has no actual clue how history has played out in the past - or directly benefited from being part of the "acceptable" groups protected by such hateful policies and governments.
It should also be obvious that the rise of more country-specific boycott/divestment/sanction movements will only continue as companies and governments pick sides in the coming years, choosing their agenda priorities and allegiances as the world's order fundamentally shifts away from American Hegemony. We're already seeing evidence of an anti-American boycott movement abroad, just as America continues its unwarranted trade war on all international goods at home. Hatred only breeds more hatred, until a level-headed party ultimately prevails over the others, often through the efforts of hated communities or minorities that said winner embraced instead of vilified.
All of this is to say: anyone who claims hatred will bring you prosperity, is banking on your ignorance to ensure their own prosperity at your expense.