LGBT Politically Correct Police

I might have dyslexia I read that as LGBBQ.

As far as the entire thread I say live and let live. Long as you aren't a terrible person I have no problems with anyone.

Aren't they all really just "gay"? I know everyone wants to think they are special, but there are only so many letters before we have to start importing letters from other countries...

You can play such ideological games with any subcategory of people. The gaming community and the schism between hardcores, casuals, the black community on the n-word, the atheist community on how to tackle religious intolerance et al.

I think the problem is you're coming off like a massive *** by saying that other places don't matter because you happen to live in an area with lots of gay people shielded by money and influence. Essentially what you're saying to the gay kid in the Bible Belt somewhere getting *** up by intolerant shitstains is that you're on your own, pack more money or join us under the big top. Now I'm not sure if that's your argument but if it is, *** move man. *** move.

For people who aren't fortunate enough to be in a LBGT stronghold full of white dudes with money, the fight continues and the fire rages on. Or at least that's how I see it from my perspective. You're comfortable and that's great but for those people subject to daily abuse, they're going to see you as a completely out of touch.

Feel free to clear things up.

Aren't all black people just black people?
Aren't all Hispanics just Mexicans?
Aren't all Asians just sex slaves?
Aren't all Jews, Jews?

Cmon, use those higher functions. They took thousands of years to evolve in.

So gays in places without an active, wealthy gay community are getting their *** kicked? Link?

That's not even remotely the same thing. More PC crap and your own racist stereotypes.

Look up LBGT homelessness.

I don't know therefore crab people.

They're exactly the same thing. You're too lazy or stupid to note the differences in each category so you unilaterally decide to paint everyone with the same brush for the sake of your laziness.

Oh the wonderful things that's done for the human race in the past.

lol, we're not even allowed to label ourselves apparently. Congrats Bacon, this is the type of scumbag you appeal to.

What part of "You're using a fallacious argument" is lost on you? I'm not going to validate a bad argument.

And I opt not to mention where I live on this forum, but I've hinted at it often enough that I'm sure some clever people could guess, provided they're aware of low-key cities with long histories of quietly getting on with life and treating all people as well as they can.

The purpose of that question which you quoted was to examine the validity of the commentary being offered. This is formally known as argumentum ad hominem and, despite what the internet would have you believe, is not an automatically invalid argument (in contrast with a No True Scotsman or Straw Man argument). You are trying to offer that I, as someone who lives somewhere in the United States and am gay, am unable to offer a valid commentary because I don't live in one of the major ghettos. That's a failed attempt at argumentum ad hominem in addition to a really shitty No True Scotsman.

I'd ask why you're so remarkably homophobic and transphobic, but I actually already know. It's long since gotten old, however.

Okay genius, are lesbians not gay? What is the difference between "gay" and "***"? Just because bored people sit around and think up false distinctions doesn't mean I have to accept them.

I truly sympathize for LGBT in rural communities, there is never a moment I'd wish physical harm against another LGBT to a degree like Matthew Shepard.

With that said, that is no rationalization for individuals within minuscule LGBT communities to dictate social doctrines particularly for much larger and longer-established LGBT communities. Do you think the cities of NYC, SF and LA were always safe-havens for LGBT? No they were not especially with Stonewall, White Riots and Blackcat. What these LGBT in rural communities should do is take a page from larger and established LGBT communities and see that overly PC policing results in ostracization.

Ultimately this fringe, is counter-productive for LGBT civil and social equality. It merely will result in more ostracization and taunting.

That's about as much *** when a Latino gets upset because you didn't refer to them as "Chicano."

Well if we can label ourselves, I need to choose between NRBA and AGAM.
Normal red-blooded American, or Amazing god among men.

And if you disagree, you are a bully and an ***.

I'll humor this for a moment, even though I know it'll fall on intentionally deaf ears:

The term "gay" has been co-opted to mean "gay man" for decades and women, especially those women who oppose collectivization under a masculine word, opt to employ a distinguishing word. Moreover, gay men and gay women have very little in common. We're male-squared and female-squared, we have no use for the opposite sex, and even our experiences of external hatred tend to be quite disparate. It's surprisingly logical to distinguish the two groups.

As for "***," that is a collective word and, in itself, covers pretty much everyone who doesn't conform to the normative sexual identity of the culture. In strictest terms, that makes something like 99% of the population ***, but no one goes with such strict definitions. The stigmatization of the word "***" is a flashpoint for some people (not unlike "***/***" in the African-American community). It'd probably make more sense not to throw the very nearly pointless word on the end of the alphabet soup, but the rather lame argument is that it tries to capture all those people who fight against labels...

Not that, again, *** people of disparate groups have a lot in common. While I bear no ill will against transgender and transsexual people, they have virtually no place in my life and their treatment under the law has effectively no impact on me, not least because heterosexuality seems to be the norm for trans people.

And, of course, there's also people like me who have a considerable amount of disdain for bisexuals that borders on the kind of barely-hidden hatred that Baconwrap displays for transgendered people and, apparently, *** activists of any stripe (except rich white ones who keep their names and faces hidden and silently support the least important ballot issues out of naked self-interest). I wouldn't exclude them from whatever the community is, I just want them to steer clear of me personally.

What part of statistical analysis don't you understand? I fail to see how percentages in respect to total US LGBT population is a fallacious argument. But again I'm not the LGBT member here afraid of listing their city/state here. You and other LGBT in this thread are, because it simply affirms my point.

Homophobic and transphobic hardly lol. Continue consuming social doctrines from your fringe LGBT.

My friends and I don't care honestly. It's all the same. Only the uptight gays actually care.

Adding the Q is just another example of libtarded one-upsmanship, and I refuse to acknowledge it as anything else. Either you are normal or you are gay. If "normal" offends you, then you hate reality.

I learned a while ago not to directly address AH's resident delusional lunatic. I know we periodically assert that we shouldn't feed the idiots (while continuing to do so), but Tenshi really belongs in his own category.

What the *** are you talking about?

If 99% of all gay people lived in your little shithole ghetto, then you'd have a point. But even with it having one of the largest populations of openly gay people (which isn't hard because Los Angeles is one of the largest population centers in the country, dumbass -- do I need to do another lecture on how one uses statistics to tell outright lies?), it doesn't make your argument any more valid. If I told you where I live, you wouldn't even recognize it as a city with a long history of being gay-positive because it does exactly what you want us to do: it quietly gets on with life.

Then again, that's not what you really want at all. You're an attention ***, just like your drag queen idol. The both of you need to have your ***-holsters plugged shut since both of you seem to think you speak on behalf of a community that repeatedly has told you otherwise. Where's your statistical analysis when it comes to everyone telling RuPaul to go *** off? Funny how the use of statistics is only hauled out to suit your argument, huh.

Gurl gurl gurl seriously...go to the gym, put on a tighter tank-top drink a Corona Light and everything will be ok!

Oh yeah. City and state?

Eh, in this instance, his question at least makes a bit of relevant sense. Honestly, so does his rebuttal, except that word "normal." Considering how many normal folks have messed around with someone of the same gender, I doubt many people qualify as purely normal. Though, on that count, as I've never so much as kissed a girl, that probably makes me more in line with the dipshit definition of "normal" than most heterosexuals. I like one gender and never wavered.

Ok, I'll tell you where I live provided you can first explain how it is relevant. You haven't come close yet, which is, again, why I have refused to answer this question.

Incidentally, my little brother lives in the next neighborhood over from you, is practically identical to you in every way, and even he thinks you're being a complete ***. Just one more notch in that statistical analysis that you don't want to hear about.

lol Pleebo is still butthurt.

"Normal" is relative to the topic being discussed. If I were in a gay parade, I would be the abnormal one. It bugs me that people want to get mad because they associate "normal" with "acceptance".

Are you still arguing against me from behind the safety blanket that is your block list? Because that would make your accusation of butthurt all the more amusing.

That's the problem, though: in virtually every discussion, what "normal" is tends to describe virtually no one. In order to distinguish heterosexuals from all those filthy, dirty ***, you have to start throwing a dictionary's-worth of adjectives into the mix because merely saying "Someone who bangs the opposite sex" is going to exclude a lot of your numbers.

Moreover, the sort of people who tend to use the word "normal" in contrast to "gay" also tend to be the sort of people who think that a man who enjoys anal stimulation is gay, that "normal" women never do anal (fun fact: heterosexuals have more anal sex than homosexuals by virtue of sheer numbers), that oral sex is borderline deviant, and heaven help the heathens and their various toys. I probably stand a better chance of finding someone into vanilla, no-frills sex in the middle of a gay bar than I do walking into the nearest church.

I'm bored enough to entertain the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE No True Scotsman argument for a moment: does anyone happen to know what the official tally of openly *** people in the Los Angeles metro area is? And what percentage that represents of the total population?

No no no, you can't compare apples to apples. The gay density of the 5 square blocks near Bacon's house is all that matters in a no true scotsman argument.

According to this, California represents only 4% of the national gay community.

Edit: It's 4% of California's population that's openly gay.