I enjoyed reading this article because I felt as if I related to it a lot. I was raised as a conservative but as I've grown and made my own informed opinions I realized I was more libertarian. I am very socially liberal but fiscally conservative so I found the article very interesting. I was especially intrigued of Becker's description of the Slumpy class. They show off their education and open-mindedness by supporting gay-rights and watching gay friendly material on TV. I was interested in Becker's perception of this. I hadn't thought of someone representing themselves as well-informed and educated by being gay-friendly and it made me wonder where the idea came from. In my opinion, I concluded this meant that if one is more educated they are more likely to base their opinions and viewpoints off of fact rather than someone who refused to educate themselves on the subject and therefore, most likely, has a skewed close-minded perception of social issues.
It got a little more confusing after Becker concluded with saying that Seinfield's idea of displaying two heterosexual men who are uncomfortable with homosexuality but also homophobia was genius because it's relatable to the Slumpies because they feel the same way. I wish he would have delved more into this idea because I felt he went off on a whole other tangent when he stated that in the conclusion. Throughout his article, Becker talked about how Slumpies are gay-friendly, educated, open-minded and love being this way. When he made this other statement in the conclusion it somewhat contradicted what point he'd been making. It was almost as if saying "even though Slumpies are publically gay-friendly, it's only skin-deep. They're actually still uncomfortable with the idea"
Do you think that Becker could have omitted this statement or do you think he meant something else by it? Do you think it changes his argument at all? Do you think Becker has illustrated an accurate portrayal of a Slumpy?