Bigotry is largely ignorance. When confronted with having to recognize something they didn't understand about their views, it's possible for them to change, usually. What often leads to them is simply the 'infrastructure of ignorance' - they may have adopted some views without information, found political groups who are accepting of that and legitimize it with 'political positions', who reassure them that those who disagree are wrong, if not hateful or evil, and they have social circles who reinforce their views. So when his anger at seeing 'politically correct sheep who cater to the gay agenda with things like telling him to wear purple in contradiction to his principled opposition to that agenda' is expressed, but he's then forced to deal with looking at the actual gay people his views are so hateful to, you see him starting to have some indication he 'went too far', that he was 'hateful'.
Sometimes, such people can even go on to become advocates for the opposite of their old views, though I wouldn't put odds on it for most.
It's really something to watch when bigots have to deal with the ignorance of their views and might realize they were wrong. They generally say 'they didn't understand before' and similar things. This has happened with race bigotry, gender bigotry, religious bigotry, and many more.
For significant bigotry issues, it's often reinforced by institutional rewards for championing the bigotry. In the slave south, defending slavery got you a lot more rewards than arguing the people were bigots. In religions opposed to gays, the same. In many situations, positions of power, book sales, and so on go to those who defend the bigotry, and a price is paid by those who try to end it.
Not that long ago, this guy would have been rewarded, and the person behind the 'purple' campaign would be in jeopardy of resigning.
That's what these campaigns against bigotry are hoping to do, to switch, eventually, that culture to where the bigotry is punished, not its opponents.
Save234
Facebook
Twitter