Or even sexuality really, because, once you actually raise your knowledge beyond “basic biology”, it becomes eerily obvious that romantic attraction and sexual attraction aren’t always in sync.
But regardless of that, why the fuck would you moderate an ONLINE FORUM based on what 3-5 year olds understand? They don’t understand taxes, are tax jokes banned? They don’t know how to drive, are road rage dad jokes off the list too?
The more I think about this, the more this mod can suck my clit. Am I supposed to disappear because I’m a bisexual person married with a kid? Am I supposed to not exist around my child because I might make a joke about being bisexual? Am I supposed to hide my own bisexuality until my kid is a teenager?
This is your typical “I’m not homophobic, I don’t mind gay people, but” person. They don’t “mind” gay/bi/lesbian/trans/queer people existing as long as they do it without them needing to acknowledge that existence.
Or to simplify it… they ARE homophobic, but because of current social trends they’re not allowed to say it out loud and they don’t want to get cancelled.
Exactly, have a guy at work like this, claims hes not homophobic but went on a full on rant about his 8-9 year old kid seeing two guys kissing/making out in front of his flat, I even tried to make him see the homophobia by asking if he would have cared if it was a guy and girl and he confirmed it was mainly about it being two guys…some people.
I’m once again annoyed that the default term became homo”sexuality,” and not homoromanticism, because A) why the fuck does anyone who’s not an immediate prospect need to know about anyone’s sexuality? B) the phoneme sexuality implies… sexuality, so it just gives a bunch of bad faith motherfuckers ammunition; C) most of the time it’s actually referring to homoromanticism; and D) even when it’s not, the majority of people would describe a homosexual and heteroromantic person as straight (or closeted :[ ).
As I said, it’s an established term. There’s another option that’s not just chaos: descriptivism. If it’s used to successfully communicate among people, it’s language. If it’s understood by a community of English speakers to be an English word, it is, even if it’s not widely known.
You’re right. I was flattening sexual/romantic attraction and being overly loose with what qualifies discussing sex. I dont agree with the rule and will avoid the comm if that doesnt get amended, but my go to first standard in this comm is “was this mod action even in the rules” before I get to “should it be in the rules”
It’s not talking about sex though. Gay and bi people existing within a marriage has nothing to do with sex.
Or even sexuality really, because, once you actually raise your knowledge beyond “basic biology”, it becomes eerily obvious that romantic attraction and sexual attraction aren’t always in sync.
But regardless of that, why the fuck would you moderate an ONLINE FORUM based on what 3-5 year olds understand? They don’t understand taxes, are tax jokes banned? They don’t know how to drive, are road rage dad jokes off the list too?
The more I think about this, the more this mod can suck my clit. Am I supposed to disappear because I’m a bisexual person married with a kid? Am I supposed to not exist around my child because I might make a joke about being bisexual? Am I supposed to hide my own bisexuality until my kid is a teenager?
What the fuck is this gatekeeping?
This is your typical “I’m not homophobic, I don’t mind gay people, but” person. They don’t “mind” gay/bi/lesbian/trans/queer people existing as long as they do it without them needing to acknowledge that existence.
Or to simplify it… they ARE homophobic, but because of current social trends they’re not allowed to say it out loud and they don’t want to get cancelled.
Exactly, have a guy at work like this, claims hes not homophobic but went on a full on rant about his 8-9 year old kid seeing two guys kissing/making out in front of his flat, I even tried to make him see the homophobia by asking if he would have cared if it was a guy and girl and he confirmed it was mainly about it being two guys…some people.
Gay people existing is political type.
Didn’t you get the memo? Anyone not cis, hetero and following gendered stereotypes should never be in the same room as a kid or teen. /s
I agree with the other commenter: it’s finely veiled bigotry.
Hey, you dropped this:
,Married with a kid is different than married to a kid haha, but thank you.
I’m once again annoyed that the default term became homo”sexuality,” and not homoromanticism, because A) why the fuck does anyone who’s not an immediate prospect need to know about anyone’s sexuality? B) the phoneme sexuality implies… sexuality, so it just gives a bunch of bad faith motherfuckers ammunition; C) most of the time it’s actually referring to homoromanticism; and D) even when it’s not, the majority of people would describe a homosexual and heteroromantic person as straight (or closeted :[ ).
linguist here. you mean «homoeros» (ὁμόερoσ) “samelove” (Greek), not “man/mankind romance” (as opposed to “anserromantic” gooselover) (Latinus)
Fellow linguist here. I did get it wrong, but I meant heteroromanticism, which is an existing term because I’m not a prescriptivist :)
ok amelatinæ
Call me what you want, that’s your business 🤷
∸◷❓ᑐ↓ᐳ畄,ᐳ꘠⍯?
lon tenpo seme la ni li sona, li toki pakala?
𓆊
At what time is it comprehension, and ramblings?
As I said, it’s an established term. There’s another option that’s not just chaos: descriptivism. If it’s used to successfully communicate among people, it’s language. If it’s understood by a community of English speakers to be an English word, it is, even if it’s not widely known.
🤭
ture enuf. demo, yar’s gat ta hav a prescrapt whan ta ba anderstaad, aterwais ya gat gabbarash ta ba rad.
You’re right. I was flattening sexual/romantic attraction and being overly loose with what qualifies discussing sex. I dont agree with the rule and will avoid the comm if that doesnt get amended, but my go to first standard in this comm is “was this mod action even in the rules” before I get to “should it be in the rules”