Opinion on the LGBTQIAPK+ community?

I’m going to assume you mean everyone who is lgbt+ by ‘community’

There’s some people I like and then there’s some people I really really do not like. Example of one person I don’t like is this one trans person I talked to. I asked her gender cause I didn’t know it and we were in the middle of a very joking chat and she said ‘what if I’m neither’, which was sort of a joke, so I responded with ‘what if I’m a toaster’ aaaaaand then the person called me a transphobic Nazi fuck for 2 weeks even after apologizing for something I didn’t know offended trans people.

Most lgbt people I know are pretty chill and the extraverted af ones, well, they can do their own thing I don’t see anything wrong with it. Personally I’m pretty chill about it (I’m gay for those who don’t know). Half the people I know don’t even know about it.

Overall it’s fine.

@terminate for clarification, we don’t think the you guys are scared of gay people, the word homophobic means that you just think that it’s wrong, that’s all. It’d also not be very right to call people heterophobes, since we do not think being straight is wrong.

It's like with any type of person, depends on their character. If someone's obsessed and causes drama for no reason, I find these people annoying, but if someone's chill and they don't cause any problems, I think they're fine. I've talked with many people who were gay/bi/lesbian or didn't like their real sex (not gender, remember that there are differences between these two) and for most of the time these people were fine and they acted like anyone else.

So yeah, I don't really mind these people as long as they're acting civil and don't get insulted over the most stupid thing ever. If you respect me, I respect you as well.

Having a pro-straight people flag isn't the same as an anti-lgbt+ flag. I'm sure most LGBT+ people wouldn't be offended if you said "it's OK to be straight" but wouldn't be OK with "It's not OK to be LGBT". Stop conflating the two.

Also, your definitions are wrong. Homophobia is hatred of homosexual people, not hatred of all LGBT+ people. Hatred or prejudice against other groups also exists, for example hatred of Transgender people is Transphobia. You can't redefine words just because you want to.

And your definition of homophobia is also wrong. While a phobia in the general sense is referring to a fear, you can't apply the meaning of that root word to "homophobia". Homophobia is defined as "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people", nothing to do with fear. Let's apply that logic to the word Hydrophobic, in a chemistry context. Seeing as Phobia means fear, it means fear of water right? Wrong. It means it repels water. See, you can't always apply the meaning of parts of words to determine the meaning of whole words, because meanings change over time and English is not logical. So again, stop trying to use tricks to redefine words. I'm assuming it's an innocent mistake, but you did get quite a few definitions wrong in your post, if you want to use word definitions to your advantage you have to actually get them right.

You also say your parents taught you that homosexuality is immoral. Why do you think it's immoral that people are born with a certain sexuality and are attracted to the same sex (which harms no one)? Why is your behavior, criticizing LGBT+ people and turning it into an "Us and Them", (which is your choice) not immoral?

I don't see how I mocked Jayfrost at all, unless you count the "CHECKMATE GAYS" thing, which is so incredibly mild. If you think me calling him homophobic is mocking in some way then that's your problem, not mine. It's an accurate descriptor of his belief system. Furthermore, I find it kind of telling that you're out here tone policing me for making an accurate description of Jayfrost, whereas Jayfrost thinks it's totally reasonable to call someone a "heterophobe" or saying that he "only sees this from the LGBTQ+ community" and you said nothing at all. I think it reveals your priorities a little bit; you're more concerned with the fact that I'm making an SJW talking point and calling someone who's homophobic a homophobe than you are about the person actually making homophobic statements.

And I'm not saying that radicals don't exist. But what you're doing is equivalent to when I say something like "white supremacists are bad" and you say "well what about BLACK supremacists huh?!?!?". I wouldn't like a gay person who hates straight people. But this doesn't represent a problem. It goes without saying that it's OK to be straight. 99.999999% of society isn't going to discriminate against you for being straight, and I'd say a good portion of society will in fact give you advantages that other people do not have. Trying to pretend like a few radicals means that you have a legitimate complaint is ridiculous.

Firstly sorry if this might be kind of long.

You misinterpreted most parts of my post. That's not really what I was trying to say at all, and I'm pretty sure your misinterpretation has led you to a misunderstanding about my interpretation of Jayfrost's post. Sorry if that's my fault, I will try to correct/clarify here.

Actually, I wasn't picking out small definition errors, they were fairly significant errors throughout his post that his arguments were based upon. For example, his argument of people calling all anti-LGBT+ people homophobes, this argument no longer works when we look at the meaning of the words he is using. Also his argument about not being afraid of homosexual people. This argument no longer works either when we look at the fact that people aren't saying he is scared of them when they say homosexual, they mean that he has a hatred or prejudice.

Again, you misunderstood my intention of referring to the example of another word when proving that you can't always take the meanings of parts of words to form the meaning of the whole word. In other words, A plus B plus C does not always equal ABC in a language context. It is completely irrelevant that the word comes from a science context, I could have picked a word from sociology, history, linguistics, fruit picking, whatever. Im just giving another example to show that the A+B+C= ABC logic doesn't always work.

So what if the conversation isn't about science? My argument isn't a science argument, my argument is that you can't claim people mean that homophobia is a fear, and then use that to back up an argument. It's a question of Jayfrost using inaccurate logic to unintentionally strawman people accusing him of homophobia (I'm sure it's an innocent mistake, but he is clearly using the phobia=fear argument, I'm sure we can agree on that). I'm not comparing apples with oranges. I'm comparing Words with Words.

I agree with your argument of it all depends on the context. For example the word phobia has different meanings depending on the context, it could be irrational fear, repelling, but in the context of homophobia in this discussion, it clearly means hatred or prejudice, which is how we usually use the word in the context of discussion of this topic. I don't see how that in any way justifies saying I "discredited my own post", you'll have to explain that to me bud.

Also I don't see any "accusatory statements" in my post. You seem to be making this accusation without any evidence or examples, which might seem hypocritical since that's what you're telling me not to do? I don't know. Anyway, I assumed Jayfrost was innocent in my post (in the word "innocent"). Sorry if the post had that kind of undertone to it, it's probably because I'm slightly angry when I see what I perceive as prejudice. Also sorry again if this is too drawn out, spent a long time writing so can't be bothered to shorten it.