Why LGBTQ instead of Non-H?

@Suzianne said
Neither one of us is as young and naive as you are imagining here.

I imagine you wouldn't want to be caught in a lie; therefore, I imagine that was you who reported me, and that the answer is: "yes".

That would still come across as rather disingenuous.

@Suzianne said
Please keep the anti-social chip on your shoulder to yourself.

Declining to answer the yes-or-no question? Interesting.

@Suzianne said

Hate should always be confronted.

Have you considered that maybe that's the only reason I respond to any of your posts?

@Suzianne said
Don't you ever get that when you talk about "others", that you are not talking about "self" any more?

Sorry to say, but based on your chronic behavior here, I don't believe you are fit to be a counselor to others, at least not yet.

@Arkturos said
Group identity is fine, but not if the organizers tell others, "You're automatically one of us and must agree with everything we believe," without the consent of said others.

Of course this organizational attempt is understandable and could be seen as analogous to minority Euro parties forming alliances -- but aren't alliances supposed to be voluntary instead of by decree ...[text shortened]... things get flipped then molecules won't fit into their usual receptors and bad things could happen.

While groups are in principle arbitrary taxonomic contrivances, which can be defined and re-defined for almost any purpose (some of which are tendentious or trivial), nonetheless, group membership is sometimes voluntary, sometimes not. I cannot choose to stop being a member of h.saps the way I can choose to stop being a member of RHP.

Asfaras being heterosexual or non-heterosexual goes, all the evidence indicates that, except for an insignificant minority, sexual orientation is not a choice; people are just born one way or another. So membership in the hetero- or non-hetero 'group' is not voluntary; what is voluntary is whether one politicizes it.

I take the point made earlier in this thread, that lumping all non-heteros into a single group makes about as much sense as dividing h.saps into Americans and non-Americans, or hillbillies and non-hillbillies. It might make sense to some Americans or hillbillies, but it's a parochial view of a very complex world.

@Arkturos said
Perhaps it was a vapid point that failed to land?

If someone were to include you in some political aggregation without your consent, wouldn't you object?

so close yet so far.

you object to L (or any other letter in LGBTQ+) but you have no problem sticking them all in a generic "non-h" ?

at least LGBTQ acknowledges the problem they are all facing: discrimination because they aren't the "normal". You are just saying H (assuming you mean hetero, but if you don't it won't improve the point) is the correct state of things and anything that differs is just wrong.

At least LGBTQ acknowledges all the different flavors that yes, are lumped in together but for a simple reason. They are all facing discrimination.

@Arkturos said
Sorry to say, but based on your chronic behavior here, I don't believe you are fit to be a counselor to others, at least not yet.

There is indeed a special group that has issues with her and right now you seem to be gunning for membership.

@Arkturos said
@Suzianne

May I ask if that was you who got me suspended recently because your filters were set to interpret my challenging and humorous posts on this topic as hate speech?

If so, please grow some humor if you have some room to fit that in among all your balls.

BTW, I have no problem with you being bi (which you have stated publicly) -- and I do understand what you ...[text shortened]... of authoritarianism (no matter how well-intended) that ironically denies individuality and dissent.

So you are claiming that Suzianne has the power to get people suspended. Is that correct?

@Arkturos said
Have you considered that maybe that's the only reason I respond to any of your posts?

To spew more hate?

Yes, it seems obvious.

@Zahlanzi said
so close yet so far.

you object to L (or any other letter in LGBTQ+) but you have no problem sticking them all in a generic "non-h" ?

at least LGBTQ acknowledges the problem they are all facing: discrimination because they aren't the "normal". You are just saying H (assuming you mean hetero, but if you don't it won't improve the point) is the correct state of things ...[text shortened]... lavors that yes, are lumped in together but for a simple reason. They are all facing discrimination.

As we (he and I) seem to be part of the same group (even if his insecurity and self-loathing prevent him from seeing it), still he disincorporates himself from it for the sole purpose of attacking me for not being in his little sub-group. This is inherently self-defeating.

And yet you, whom I assume is not part of this group (although I do not know enough to know if you are or not, which is partially the whole point here), at least you seem to understand the situation better than he does.

My position is as you say, that our group should stand together in fighting those who judge us unfairly, those who in all honesty "pre-judge" us to discriminate against us, but he cannot see that in his rush to take up the cause of our opponents. I do not fully understand this and even those who would be our allies do not understand it either. This tells me that it isn't entirely me holding the wrong end of the stick.

@Suzianne said
As we (he and I) seem to be part of the same group (even if his insecurity and self-loathing prevent him from seeing it), still he disincorporates himself from it for the sole purpose of attacking me for not being in his little sub-group. This is inherently self-defeating.

And yet you, whom I assume is not part of this group (although I do not know enough to [i]kn ...[text shortened]... t understand it either. This tells me that it isn't entirely me holding the wrong end of the stick.

A person may belong to so many groups over the course of a lifetime, that it hardly makes sense to catalog them all, even if it were possible. Someone once asked Sammy Davis Jr. what his golf handicap was, and he answered, "I'm a one-eyed Jewish negro!" A person may find, to his pleasure or dismay, that he belongs to a group he didn't even know existed, until someone points it out to him (those with perfect pitch, or ADHS kids, or parents of un-outted gays). Moreover, a person may find that two or more groups to which he owes allegiance are fundamentally at variance with each other (gay Evangelical Christians), leading not only to conflicts between the groups, but personality conflicts within the person himself. I have known a family who disowned their gay child, rather than face censure from their fellow church-goers; no doubt there are other families who changed their congregation, rather than disown their gay child.

The one thing which simply does not fly any more, in post-modern society, is simplification to black-&-white, binary issues. "It's complicated," and some people really struggle to cope with that.

@Zahlanzi said
i invite you to go to a rowdy group of football supporters and just refer to them as "football people" . then say they all (including their arch rivals) look the same to you

let me know how it goes

You wouldn't say football people, you'd say football "fans".

You can't say Pride "Fans" because they aren't fans of Pride so you have to use proper english and say Pride People.

@Zahlanzi said
"Just refer to the group as "Pride" people. It's just easier. "
Easier for whom? Should acknowledging people be a matter of convenience? as in i only show you basic decency if it's convenient to me?

"They have Pride parades every year so it makes sense."
they have st patrick parades every year should i just think of white people as drunken idiots who dress in green?

there are hetero peoole in pride parades and there are lgbtq people not attending pride parades

It's funny you don't like me saying "people", yet you use it.

Thanks for proving my point.

@Suzianne said
Or one could just use LGBTQ+.

Why do people everywhere seem to have a problem with people not like them?

What happened to "live and let live"?

How about simple respect for other Humans? It seems too difficult for some.

we were talking about verbal speech. One syllable much easier than reciting letters.

@uzless said
we were talking about verbal speech. One syllable much easier than reciting letters.

I suppose you could just say "scum", like some supposed Christians do.

One less letter. Easier, right?