131–140 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about monogamous gay men then? There are plenty of them. You should be more supportive of them than a straight single person who has more than one sexual partner. But you aren't, for some reason. You're specifically railing against gay people rather than unsafe promiscuity. Interesting ...
That's a weird argument telling me who I should and shouldn't support. Not sure what you're getting to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Some communities are actually much better than others on a variety of issues. I mistakenly thought that this was an issue HN would have been better and more mature on too, but I'm learning I was wrong about that. But compare your average 8chan poster to your average HN poster and you'll see that for sure not all online communities are the same.
[flagged]
Wow there's a lot of childish homophobia coming out in the comments here. I (naively?) thought that HN would be better than that for some reason?
Which subgroups/tendencies show up in the comments is therefore more a question of the particular thread: the title, the topic, and the early comments. If it seems like "HN would be better than $X", that's only because we mostly manage to avoid the stimuli that produce $X responses.
I preordered https://areyou.gay a while ago. I don't know what to put on it, but I would like to host a FAQ or something for people who are questioning their sexuality and make it v wholesome.
Make a subdomain "why" and put up the same content as on http://youare.gay/
http://whyareyou.gay http://whosaysim.gay http://youare.gay
And have them play the appropriate clips from that interview, then maybe redirect to the next one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not, we should all be able to announce our sexual preferences through our email address. But why stop there? Might as well make things clear with sub-domains. Bob@white.muslim.palistinian.overfourty.bald.fat.gay
Hm... By choosing the right gTLD one could fit a whole poem in an e-mail address. Example: ah.what.a.world.of.love.was@her.feet (Keats) That could take the whole concept of vanity domains to a whole new level!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who makes these rules? Who decides what is "anti-LGBTQ"? Will they keep adding on more letters to LGBTQ as they become available?
One of these questions is not like the others
Sadly, thatsso.gay is akready taken. That would have been a really funny domain to have.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of these questions is not like the others
The point of the "more letters" is probably not what you think, but rather what if the entity in charge decides to add a new one (say, X) but it turns out the L, the B and the T now feel alienated by the X? Or, conversely, what if they decide not to include some new group (say, P)? It just seems rather nebulous and down to the whims of some mysterious entity with unclear motives.
There is no "entity in charge" of the LGBT acronym, no central authority approving, adding or removing letters, or any particular concern over "alienation" from adding or removing letters. It's a cultural idiom, not an ISO standard.
Regarding its "nebulous" nature and "motives," quoting from Wikipedia[0]:
The initialism, as well as some of its common variants, have been adopted
into the mainstream as an umbrella term for use when labeling topics
pertaining to sexuality and gender identity.
The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and
gender identity-based cultures.
And if you're instead talking about the registrar, they're not a mysterious entity, and their motives are clearly spelled out on their policy page[1].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the "more letters" is probably not what you think, but rather what if the entity in charge decides to add a new one (say, X) but it turns out the L, the B and the T now feel alienated by the X? Or, conversely, what if they decide not to include some new group (say, P)? It just seems rather nebulous and down to the whims of some mysterious entity with unclear motives.
What are you even on about? There is no "entity in charge" of the LGBT acronym, no central authority approving, adding or removing letters, or any particular concern over "alienation" from adding or removing letters. It's a cultural idiom, not an ISO standard. Regarding its "nebulous" nature and "motives," quoting from Wikipedia[0]: The initialism, as well as some of its common variants, have been adopted into the ma…