[peanut] Open forum debater is nutting to gay people

[EmpressMaia]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36277

Mega skill issue. If you think that being gay is deviant the door is there

[NoxVS]

Only like 2% of the world has green eyes, but no one is going to say that having green eyes isn't normal.

[Constellado]

It's no different than people doing parades about Jesus or something.

Sure, but have you seen a christian parade with a priest with his balls dangling out?

No, not Christian. It is taboo there to be naked.

Other religions though?
I did a Google search and there is an Indian religion/festival that has people parading naked.
To them, that's likely normal.

Nothing is ever normal to an outsider, if that makes sense.

[Jacquerel]

I tried to present my stance on this topic but was just passed off as another person motivated by bigotry.

thats because you are

[Timonk]

Sure, but have you seen a christian parade with a priest with his balls dangling out?

hey bro i may have posted this once before but you havent responded so i will ask you directly:
can i "twist your balls very tightly" to test if you "enjoy" it or if you "hate" it because it "hurts"?

[Billcyferka9]

(Some waffle about common bigoted bullshit like "don't shove being gay in my face")

I got yelled at for making the joke I actually want to make last night in admin channels so I'll just stop talking to you and tell you to go learn more about people who are different than you.

This conversation is just problems after problems but still, you are being an ass. I want to end it as well. Maybe headmins will have some common sense and realise that permabanning me for stating an opinion that isn't openly hostile is not smart and that permabanning me for saying ligger once is outright retarded. Bye bye asshole.

[Timonk]

but yes i have heard about christian priests with their balls out around children, a lot actually

[Jacquerel]

Maybe headmins will have some common sense and realise that permabanning me for stating an opinion that isn't openly hostile is not smart and that permabanning me for saying ligger once is outright retarded. Bye bye asshole.

i would put a lot of money on them not doing that
it wouldn't be "common sense" though, what you believe here is very quickily ceasing to be normal

[Billcyferka9]

Sure, but have you seen a christian parade with a priest with his balls dangling out?

hey bro i may have posted this once before but you havent responded so i will ask you directly:
can i "twist your balls very tightly" to test if you "enjoy" it or if you "hate" it because it "hurts"?

I donated my testicles to tgstation to support the server upkeep sorry

[Timonk]

dont worry you dont need to anymore you are banned, you can probably demand them back then we can test it

[Billcyferka9]

Maybe headmins will have some common sense and realise that permabanning me for stating an opinion that isn't openly hostile is not smart and that permabanning me for saying ligger once is outright retarded. Bye bye asshole.

i would put a lot of money on them not doing that
it wouldn't be "common sense" though, what you believe here is very quickily ceasing to be normal

I mean, I can just say that all of you are intolerant bigots, call it a day and play paradise (or any other server with non brain damaged admins), but I am still making an effort to prove you wrong. I don't care if they still decide that my opinion is bad and that I deserve to be an outcast for thinking different because I will just appeal in a year or when we get a different set of headmins.

[Higgin]

I'm going to appeal shit even if I know I am 100% getting denied simply because I don't agree with your bias and I want to make it clear.

there's nothing civil about bigotry, there's nothing polite about expressing it without raising your voice, and there's nothing dignified about going out posting in your own peanut

RIP bozo, good luck living with people

>Sees something that they don't agree with
>Immediately calls them a bigot
Good luck being civil with people

you're a bigot if you hold a prejudice against people on the basis of arbitrary characteristics.

ultimately, all characteristics are arbitrary, even your beliefs as such, because there is no such thing as a truly free will and no self-choosing self.

however, when your beliefs are to exclude the existence of others - to treat them as "less than" human or to in some way deny their existence as being as valid as your own, when they cause you no harm - you are the one doing and promoting that harm.

R11 does not deny you freedom of conscience - you can believe whatever the fuck you think you truly believe - but asks that you not express an intolerance of others in this community. this is an open community in which those people have as much right as you to be a part of it and not subject to exclusion or the expression of exclusion from basic human consideration by others. you've failed and continue to fail that test by digging in and perceiving the rule as a bias rather than a basic protection everybody - even you - should have, so you've fallen afoul of the rule for which you were banned from the Discord. this seems to fall in line with a pattern of in-game conduct which I imagine led to the QC ban from the servers omega cited - which you are also entitled to appeal.

i'm not going to be civil and i don't care about civility when it comes to bigotry. bigotry isn't civil because it necessarily excludes people from equal consideration in the conversation. if your position is that to be gay is in some way wrong - that it makes you less a person of moral worth and standing, or that it represents a life that should be confined, eliminated, or discouraged, even as it is lived and enjoyed not only with no harm to others but with a history of violent persecution and repression across "normal" societies - you are not having a civil conversation in which civility is a virtue inasmuch as it means pulling your ego back and participating fairly and equitably with others.

you are engaged in bigotry. you should consider where you're speaking from and what parts of your life rely on gay people being "less than" in order for you to live. if you realize that none of those requirements are real and material - that there is nothing which mutually excludes you living, loving, breathing, and existing with the existence of gay people that is not artificial nor imposed - you should abandon your idea of "normal" meaning anything but a sterile descriptive statistic which you would not accept as a fig leaf for mistreatment or prejudice if you were a gay person reading what you've written.

who knows? you might be, idk. i was sincere in hoping you have good luck living with others because placing arbitrary limits on their humanity also involves limiting your own. you might get away with it in a particular community that enforces or normalizes your prejudice - not this one. the rule exists to protect everyone, and the appeals process exists to protect the rule. i hope you can understand why it's an important rule here.

[Jacquerel]

I mean, I can just say that all of you are intolerant bigots, call it a day and play paradise (or any other server with non brain damaged admins), but I am still making an effort to prove you wrong.

you should save yourself some time and start making your new paradise character I think
all you're doing in here is entrenching any beliefs anyone might have already had about you

and it's significantly unlikely that any future term is going to believe differently, at least if your appeal is based on "I should not have been banned to begin with"
in my (not an admin) opinion you're not likely to succeed on any appeal in any amount of time unless you have some measure of introspection

[Timonk]

he hasnt mentioned the priest balls either yet

[Jacquerel]

he hasnt mentioned the priest balls either yet

the silence on the subject of christian priest balls is deafening

[Billcyferka9]

I'm going to appeal shit even if I know I am 100% getting denied simply because I don't agree with your bias and I want to make it clear.

there's nothing civil about bigotry, there's nothing polite about expressing it without raising your voice, and there's nothing dignified about going out posting in your own peanut

RIP bozo, good luck living with people

>Sees something that they don't agree with
>Immediately calls them a bigot
Good luck being civil with people

you're a bigot if you hold a prejudice against people on the basis of arbitrary characteristics.

ultimately, all characteristics are arbitrary, even your beliefs as such, because there is no such thing as a truly free will and no self-choosing self.

however, when your beliefs are to exclude the existence of others - to treat them as "less than" human or to in some way deny their existence as being as valid as your own, when they cause you no harm - you are the one doing and promoting that harm.

R11 does not deny you freedom of conscience - you can believe whatever the fuck you think you truly believe - but asks that you not express an intolerance of others in this community. this is an open community in which those people have as much right as you to be a part of it and not subject to exclusion or the expression of exclusion from basic human consideration by others. you've failed and continue to fail that test by digging in and perceiving the rule as a bias rather than a basic protection everybody - even you - should have, so you've fallen afoul of the rule for which you were banned from the Discord. this seems to fall in line with a pattern of in-game conduct which I imagine led to the QC ban from the servers omega cited - which you are also entitled to appeal.

i'm not going to be civil and i don't care about civility when it comes to bigotry. bigotry isn't civil because it necessarily excludes people from equal consideration in the conversation. if your position is that to be gay is in some way wrong - that it makes you less a person of moral worth and standing, or that it represents a life that should be confined, eliminated, or discouraged, even as it is lived and enjoyed not only with no harm to others but with a history of violent persecution and repression across "normal" societies - you are not having a civil conversation in which civility is a virtue inasmuch as it means pulling your ego back and participating fairly and equitably with others.

you are engaged in bigotry. you should consider where you're speaking from and what parts of your life rely on gay people being "less than" in order for you to live. if you realize that none of those requirements are real and material - that there is nothing which mutually excludes you living, loving, breathing, and existing with the existence of gay people that is not artificial nor imposed - you should abandon your idea of "normal" meaning anything but a sterile descriptive statistic which you would not accept as a fig leaf for mistreatment or prejudice if you were a gay person reading what you've written.

who knows? you might be, idk. i was sincere in hoping you have good luck living with others because placing arbitrary limits on their humanity also involves limiting your own. you might get away with it in a particular community that enforces or normalizes your prejudice - not this one. the rule exists to protect everyone, and the appeals process exists to protect the rule. i hope you can understand why it's an important rule here.

I believe that my ban was due to a misinterpretation in what I said. I had no intent of saying that gay people should be less human or anything similar. That is mostly why I am appealing it. I do not have a prejudice against the LGBT community in general. I accept anyone of any sexual orientation or preference. I believe in what you call equality. To put it heavily, it means that gay people are not better than straight people and straight people are not better than gay people. We should live in peace without either side assuming alleged superiority. That is the basic idea of the message I wanted to convey, and not some retarded extremist idea that gay people don't deserve to live or have rights.

[Billcyferka9]

Funny how the message that got me banned and the context behind it was mostly focused on mental illness and a misinterpretation has lead it to being strictly about gay people

[Donglesplonge]

he hasnt mentioned the priest balls either yet

the silence on the subject of christian priest balls is deafening

the amount of impulse control it was taking not to say "i hope he doesn't leave us hanging" was not strong enough and i have failed

[Archie700]

This was said towards an admin he argued with with days after the initial argument and while the admin was talking to him about calling a human a "ligger"



He also called them that in the ahelp conversation itself.

Other choice conversation bits:

[iansdoor]

You know on the topic of that. TGMC staffie did that. viewtopic.php?p=730623#p730623

[BonChoi]

isn't a homunculus just like a tiny person created through a means that is not sexual reproduction

like the "russian homunculus" videos or the thing from that tv show, smiling friends

I could see how you could misspell homunculus, hell I even did it once while writing this, replacing the u with an o




... the rest of it is bad though lol

[Justice12354]

<snip>

lol i had gay anal sex with your father

You didn't have to ask me to make this part of my signature so hard

[Archie700]

isn't a homunculus just like a tiny person created through a means that is not sexual reproduction

like the "russian homunculus" videos or the thing from that tv show, smiling friends

I could see how you could misspell homunculus, hell I even did it once while writing this, replacing the u with an o




... the rest of it is bad though lol

For one, why would someone call someone else a homunculus

Second, they called them that in the ahelp ticket as well, with the exact same spelling.

Third, during the original argument (which was where the banned statement was said), the admin directly stated they were homosexual.

Noted that everything that came from discord was said in tg-gen, so all of them can be searched

[dendydoom]

normal

adjective
nor·​mal ˈnȯr-məl
Synonyms of normal: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine
approximating the statistical average or norm

Wikipedia:
Surveys in Western cultures find, on average, that about 93% of men and 87% of women identify as completely heterosexual, 4% of men and 10% of women as mostly heterosexual, 0.5% of men and 1% of women as evenly bisexual, 0.5% of men and 0.5% of women as mostly homosexual, and 2% of men and 0.5% of women as completely homosexual.

This means, by definition, being gay is not normal. I don't understand your definition of normal, so please provide it so I can make any sense of what you just said.

I am not fooling anyone, you're just paranoid and intolerant.
Speaking of intolerancy,

You are either on one side or the other and due to human nature, we will always be in a conflict about this. What was to gain was valueable opinions of other people on this controversial topic and express my own as well.

This isn't a discussion of political beliefs or which video game you like or don't like. There aren't two valid sides in the discussion. There is no "valuable opinion" that goes against the existence of LGBT people. You are either right or wrong, and anything but "Gay people deserve to exist without having to worry about having their romantic or sexual preferences questioned" is wrong.

There are valid opinions and valid sides in THIS discussion. A discussion which dictates that gay people don't deserve to exist never occured and you just made it up in your head right now. The argument which I stated originally was about LGBT people boasting about their non-heterosexual status and making it seem as being heterosexual is worse. You just didn't read it and you are throwing random shit you just spat out at me without thinking about it. LGBT people do deserve rights and especially should live in peace of mind without worrying about having their preferences questioned, but an even smaller group of people in the LGBT community are trying to "show it off" to put it lightly. Parades for example, are a symbol of LGBT's achievement of freedom, but it got to the point where we have grown men walking around children with dog masks and bondage equipment on. This was never, NEVER about gay people not deserving to exist and have basic rights. Think about what you say and get out of my face with your silly banter.

i don't know you, your background, your experiences or anything like that. this will be my one and only attempt to address your arguments on their own merit without extrapolating further judgement about your character as respectfully as i can. please do not expect a response after this, i really don't have the energy.

firstly:

This means, by definition, being gay is not normal

is a dehumanizing statement in ways that you may not immediately recognize.

it reduces the complex interplay of experience and identity into a simple statistic. by defining "normal" based solely on statistical averages (the percentage of population who are heterosexual) it suggests abnormality within a dichotomy (normal and abnormal, straight and gay). it strips away an individual's worth based on all facets of their being, and reduces them to a statistic. heterosexual people are normal. homosexual people are normal. this is because, aside from their sexual orientation, the depth of their humanity is of the same intrinsic complexity, and the same intrinsic value.

it infers the exact same thing you argue against when you imply that the existence of pride creates a hierarchy. by citing heterosexual people as normal and homosexual people as abnormal, you have constructed the exact same hierarchy.

describing gay people as abnormal and straight people as normal is a textbook example of marginalization. it places them outside of what is considered typical, reinforcing biases and creating a feeling of exclusion from "the norm." marginalization in this way can easily be seen as dehumanizing: it denies gay people the same basic respect and inclusion that should be granted to everyone.

it is a subtle erosion of someone's dignity that judges them based on one facet of their identity. sound familiar to how you might be feeling in this situation?

historically, labelling groups of people as "abnormal" is the precursor to more explicit means of mistreatment and dehumanization. similar language has been used to justify discrimination and exclusion, which further evolves into violence. when an argument checks the boxes of this abhorrent legacy, it implies further things about your views which you may or may not mean.

People say being fat is good, being gay is good, being mentally ill is good. Those are things that do not need more rights or benefits than normal people

you've created a zero-sum game in this predication of your argument. it, again, sets up a false dichotomy, suggesting that recognizing the rights of one group in turn diminishes the rights of another. in reality, advocating for lgbtq rights does not (and should not) mean taking away from the rights of heterosexual people. both should co-exist without diminishing each other.

The argument which I stated originally was about LGBT people boasting about their non-heterosexual status and making it seem as being heterosexual is worse.

this is a misrepresentation of the core position (again, sound familiar?) of advocates for lgbtq rights. the argument for rights is about equality and the right to exist and be visible without discrimination or violence. it is not (and should not) be about elevating one group over another.

the issues you have with the intricacies of pride you may find that many gay people themselves can agree with. but the way in which this core argument is used to extrapolate further implications and inferences is what is troubling.

Parades for example, are a symbol of LGBT's achievement of freedom, but it got to the point where we have grown men walking around children with dog masks and bondage equipment on.

this, similarly, becomes an argument predicated on a red herring. mentioning extreme cases at pride parades (which many gay people may also have problems with) distracts from the fundamental issues of highlighting equal rights and acceptance for gay people, which historically as a group they have been denied. these specific behaviours are not representative of all gay people, and to imply so is an example of intolerance.

In (insert ancient year here), people would be killed or imprisoned for being gay and people with mental disorders would be fine (or would become renowned artists lol).

in the sweaty halls of a debate society, this would be called an "appeal to tradition". a fallacious argument which predicates its worth and appeal to the assumption that older ways are inherently better. it also misrepresents the truth entirely, because mental illness was absolutely not accepted or even understood. mental illness has a long and storied history of dehumanization, ostracization and violence.

LGBT people do deserve rights and especially should live in peace of mind without worrying about having their preferences questioned, but an even smaller group of people in the LGBT community are trying to 'show it off' to put it lightly.

the logic of this statement is self-contradictory. you claim to accept and support the existence of gay people, but argue against their visibility, which is an integral part of acceptance and normalization. tolerance involves accepting and respecting differences, not limiting their expression and reducing them to a dichotomy based on dehumanizing statistics.

I accept anyone of any sexual orientation or preference. I believe in what you call equality. To put it heavily, it means that gay people are not better than straight people and straight people are not better than gay people. We should live in peace without either side assuming alleged superiority. That is the basic idea of the message I wanted to convey, and not some retarded extremist idea that gay people don't deserve to live or have rights.

i have no issue with this statement. we are in agreement with its core argument. however, i don't believe that the presentation of your other arguments infers it. that may be where the issue is, intentionally or unintentionally.

thank you for your time and for hearing my argument.

[TypicalRig]

my future vision is picking up a vision of dendy locking this for being too spicy

edit: speak of the devil she essay posted right as I posted this. does the nuke approach?!

[EmpressMaia]

Dendy they are not worth your time

[warbluke]

For one, why would someone call someone else a homunculus

I do this on occasion, it's a funny word. Until a few years ago I thought it was a term everyone knew about despite having learned it through tabletop myself. I use it to poke fun when I learn a dark truth about someone like the fact they microwave icecream or sleep in their shoes because I think calling them a freak is both unoriginal and too mean.

[Archie700]

For one, why would someone call someone else a homunculus

I do this on occasion, it's a funny word. Until a few years ago I thought it was a term everyone knew about despite having learned it through tabletop myself. I use it to poke fun when I learn a dark truth about someone like the fact they microwave icecream or sleep in their shoes because I think calling them a freak is both unoriginal and too mean.

True but I don't think in this case they meant well by it

[BonChoi]

For one, why would someone call someone else a homunculus

I don't know I think it would be a pretty funny insult

Second, they called them that in the ahelp ticket as well, with the exact same spelling.

Third, during the original argument (which was where the banned statement was said), the admin directly stated they were homosexual.

Noted that everything that came from discord was said in tg-gen, so all of them can be searched

!!!THIS IS IMPORTANT CONTEXT!!!

Yeah that's pretty shitty

[dragomagol]

This is why I suggest a headmin candidate next term run on the gamblecore-pilled "Double or nothing" style of headmin review. Under this revolutionary system, if a headmin team upholds a ban it's length is doubled for the banned party.

does this mean one has to successfully appeal twice after getting their permaban appeal denied

Yes, but it's like the last round of family feud and they have to handle each appeal without knowing how the other person answered

[Billcyferka9]

For one, why would someone call someone else a homunculus

I do this on occasion, it's a funny word. Until a few years ago I thought it was a term everyone knew about despite having learned it through tabletop myself. I use it to poke fun when I learn a dark truth about someone like the fact they microwave icecream or sleep in their shoes because I think calling them a freak is both unoriginal and too mean.

True but I don't think in this case they meant well by it

They called me a homonym a few days earlier and deserved to be called that

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Having read all of this, my opinion is that this ban should be overturned - firstly, he was explicitly told by Justice that he wouldn't be banned for expressing his opinion, and saying "well Justice isn't a discord Jannie!" Is a copout, plain and simple. To 99% of players they're just going to see the admin title and assume there's no difference.

Second off, he explicitly said in this thread he has no issues with the LGBT community. Either he really doesn't, or he's gotten the message and is willing to conform.

At most, just ban him from polcon for his own good.

For the record, I do believe he is most likely actually a bigot, I just don't feel this situation in particular warrants his ban, due to the actual circumstances of the situation.

[EmpressMaia]

I think he needs to stop looking at social media because irl people don't boast about their sexuality that much. It is indeed weird yelling proudly your sexuality in public because that's just weird in that context. In social media, it's fine because social media is different to real life, and people loove talking about themselves there.
Let people do parades once a year that is good human cultural stuff that humans have been doing about various things for centuries.
It's no different than people doing parades about Jesus or something.

My original argument starts somewhat with "I hate social media because" or something. Can't be bothered to check now but I didn't focus on real life that much.

It's no different than people doing parades about Jesus or something.

Sure, but have you seen a christian parade with a priest with his balls dangling out?

another person lied to into beliving Folsom street festival is a all pride march

[iwishforducks]

dude there's WAY too many words in this thread

also lol at the imitates post

[EmpressMaia]

i dont read imitates posts

[iwishforducks]

oh trust me i didnt read it, i just skimmed it and laughed

[Archie700]

-snip-

Justice was not the one to ban him. Nor do they have the authority to tell discord mods not to ban him. Nor were they the one to report it.

He stated his opinion before Justice said this, he wasn't encouraged. This was his literal first response in the argument. And it was in tg-gen.

And whatever he stated about how he was an ally, the rest of his posts and his IC game behaviour do not imply it.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

-snip-

He stated his opinion before Justice said this, he wasn't encouraged. This was his literal first response in the argument. And it was in tg-gen.

This is fair enough. I was under the impression Justice had said what he said first, which would have been a huge bait.

[Archie700]

Do people legitimately believe BDSM, public nudity, furry or (insert sexual kink) are exclusive to the LGBTQ+

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Do people legitimately believe BDSM, public nudity, furry or (insert sexual kink) are exclusive to the LGBTQ+

No, theres obviously stuff like that in straight people, it just doesn't get as much attention because it's not seen as a political issue.

As noted in this thread, he was complaining about how sometimes there are people running around in BDSM gear/nude at Pride parades. Although they are a very small percentage that as was noted earlier in the thread even some LGBT people take issue with it, they get blown up and featured a lot in conservative media in order to plaster the LGBT community as degenerate perverts.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the appealant's ONLY interactions with Pride anything has been cherry picked pictures of people in BDSM gear, while ignoring the other 99% of everything.

[Billcyferka9]

Do people legitimately believe BDSM, public nudity, furry or (insert sexual kink) are exclusive to the LGBTQ+

No, theres obviously stuff like that in straight people, it just doesn't get as much attention because it's not seen as a political issue.

As noted in this thread, he was complaining about how sometimes there are people running around in BDSM gear/nude at Pride parades. Although they are a very small percentage that as was noted earlier in the thread even some LGBT people take issue with it, they get blown up and featured a lot in conservative media in order to plaster the LGBT community as degenerate perverts.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the appealant's ONLY interactions with Pride anything has been cherry picked pictures of people in BDSM gear, while ignoring the other 99% of everything.

Maybe it is true that I only know the cherry picked facts. Idk, I am not a gayologist or something. That is why I am mostly open to what other people say on this topic and the ban was simply marked as bigotry without any thought put into it.

[Timonk]

i still havent heard back about the priest balls after you started that argument

[TheSmallBlue]

Every TG player must have a gayology degree sorry

[Timonk]

i have a gayology degree in the field "balls". every post i make has to be about balls one way or another.

[Constellado]

Posting in your own peanut is always a mistake.

[Justice12354]

This whole balls conversation reminded me of when I was little and I'd go to these carnival parades with my parents, where there would be straight up naked women. I feel like many issues pointed at the LGBTQ+ community are copium

-snip-

He stated his opinion before Justice said this, he wasn't encouraged. This was his literal first response in the argument. And it was in tg-gen.

This is fair enough. I was under the impression Justice had said what he said first, which would have been a huge bait.

I'm a pug, not an asshole :yawn:
Regardless, my statement stands true (opinions on their own aren't bannable, but expression of bigotry is; and I couldn't see anyone banning them at the moment), but I should've explained to them what we understand as expression of bigotry juuuust to make it clear. Either way, it looks a little bad on my part to reply to a player who was asking whether they were gonna get banned that they were fine and then they get banned aahhhhh

[DrAmazing343]

Posting in your own peanut is always a mistake.

I wrote up a very witty reply to this thread yesterday that got wiped because my phone cache updated and it didn't have me logged in anymore, and then I forgot about this thread until lo and behold it's gone nuclear. I think I said something along the line of telling the guy to suck nuts, or something, and then this. Yeah. Posting in your own peanut is always a mistake, unless you're making an own way more epic than you think you are, and even then it's ill-advisable.

[MrStonedOne]

For the record, I do believe he is most likely actually a bigot, I just don't feel this situation in particular warrants his ban, due to the actual circumstances of the situation.

Saying that message when they didn't have a history would have lead to a more inquisitive response from the jannies.

jannies are almost always admins, so while this doesn't directly apply, its gonna be in their mind regardless:

• Have they tried to previously claim instances were accidental references but they just keep accidentally being a bigot?

Context is important, but somebody being an out and proud bigot, nazi, or white supremacist also counts as context.

[Jacquerel]

if i ever get banned or noted i'll post in my own peanut and everyone will love my posts just wait and see

[Higgin]

dendy's been a lot more charitable than i care to have been in speaking directly to the problems in argument.

just to add: even if the point about past treatment of LGBT and mentally ill people was, being charitable and not treating it as an appeal to tradition, meant to say "look how much better things are now, why go to this extent? why be so loud about their 'abnormality?'" it is to deny the validity of the present expression of those people to whom it is meaningful - especially hard to understand in the context of the history of how people of those populations have been treated, and hard to see as other than willfully blind to the present struggles and concerns of those populations to boot.

it's an exclusionary and reactionary orientation towards those people, the expression of which is not allowed, and which, even if you disavow the prejudice in one place, must be weighed against the harm it constitutes towards those people across a pattern of your expressions in argument on the Discord and the game (where you are also entitled to appeal the QC.)

the rightness and severity of the ban are related to the judgment of not just any one statement and what it communicates but the persistence, willfulness, and harm of the conduct.

if you can't help but come off as bigoted and communicate prejudice that you don't claim to have - even if you come out to say the opposite, even if only when directly challenged and facing sanctions - it becomes harder to take your word at one point A against everything else you've said at points B through Z, making the sanction more likely and more severe in the necessary interest of protecting the community under R11.

[Vekter]

The fact that Dendy bothered to type all of that out just for Billy to completely ignore it should tell everyone involved what kind of person he is.

[TypicalRig]

The fact that Dendy bothered to type all of that out just for Billy to completely ignore it should tell everyone involved what kind of person he is.

idk but you have to admit Billy has a point about gays not being normal. it's a dangerous agenda and slippery slope to push this kind of mentality and normalizes something inherently wrong in our society. as a community we need to come with terms with the fact that the queers are not "ordinary" people. we're extraordinary. we're better. transcendent beings even. stronger. faster... we will crush all of you in our strongest pride month......