Who counts as queer?

[Angrboda]

Additionally, characterising me as sensitive is also just thinly-veiled rudeness.  And, weirdly, equates sensitivity with something inappropriate or wrong.  And is also quite false.  I just don't waste time with unprofitable interlocutors, and uncivil discussion is unprofitable.  I have little emotional upset over this.

Or it's just an honest observation. You do seem unnecessarily sensitive. I suspect part of it is you're naturally combative and contrary.

[FrustratedFool]

Additionally, characterising me as sensitive is also just thinly-veiled rudeness.  And, weirdly, equates sensitivity with something inappropriate or wrong.  And is also quite false.  I just don't waste time with unprofitable interlocutors, and uncivil discussion is unprofitable.  I have little emotional upset over this.

Or it's just an honest observation.  You do seem unnecessarily sensitive.  I suspect part of it is you're naturally combative and contrary.

In the context it seems highly unlikely to be an honest observation.  Or, at best, it's a sincere subjective assessment weaponised.  Either is uncivil.

It seems odd to me that I come across as unnecessarily sensitive.  If anything, I am more often accused elsewhere of my posts coming across as cold, detached, arrogant, too formal, etc.

I admit to having a contrarian streak, but not combative.

[Angrboda]

Or it's just an honest observation.  You do seem unnecessarily sensitive.  I suspect part of it is you're naturally combative and contrary.

In the context it seems highly unlikely to be an honest observation.  Or, at best, it's a sincere subjective assessment weaponised.  Either is uncivil.

It seems odd to me that I come across as unnecessarily sensitive.  If anything, I am more often accused elsewhere of my posts coming across as cold, detached, arrogant, too formal, etc.

I admit to having a contrarian streak, but not combative.

Okay, let's see if you can thread this other needle.

[FrustratedFool]

In the context it seems highly unlikely to be an honest observation.  Or, at best, it's a sincere subjective assessment weaponised.  Either is uncivil.

It seems odd to me that I come across as unnecessarily sensitive.  If anything, I am more often accused elsewhere of my posts coming across as cold, detached, arrogant, too formal, etc.

I admit to having a contrarian streak, but not combative.

Okay, let's see if you can thread this other needle.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it seems you have decided to engage with me in a quarrelsome and pedantic manner.  That too is uncivil.

[arewethereyet]

Inspired by a recent IG post:

Who/what counts as 'queer' (ie part of the LGBTQ+) spectrum?

Note: I'm not asking whether it matters, or whether anyone should care, I'm simply asking who belongs (and by extension what the criteria are).

My opinion: all non-harmful sexualities outside of alloheterosexual, all genders other than cisman/woman are clearly inside (to me).

I tend towards also including sexual relationships that are outside of the monogamous mainstream (so might well include polyamory) and possibly also lifestyle fetishism, though this is not so clear to me (if you have a good argument for/against please present it).

Thoughts?

bold mine - What you really mean is 'agree with me'.  

You aren't interested in anything other than what aligns with your assertion.

[FrustratedFool]

You are on ignore arewe. Something you specifically asked for me to do.

[arewethereyet]

You are on ignore arewe.  Something you specifically asked for me to do.

Yet you read the post.  

But this way you can not answer because you can pretend you didn't read it.

[FrustratedFool]

I have no problem admitting I read the post. I know that as a moderator you can tell that. I choose to read a number of posts of people I have set to ignore. That is not a gotcha for you.

I sometimes like to know what people say even though they are on ignore. I am a curious person. But it is much better to have people on ignore than engage in uncivil and unprofitable discourse with them. I will likely read a few more of your responses. The point is, though, it will be my choice, and I will ignore more than I read, and I will benefit from that.

If there is a stronger form of ignore which prevents me reading your posts and which prevents you from posting on my threads, I would take that option. Does such an option exist?

[arewethereyet]

Just like a long-standing member of this forum, your way of dealing with those who don't agree with you is to pretend to ignore them.

Now, tell us again, how you are here for conversation and not an echo chamber.

[Ahriman]

I have no problem admitting I read the post.  I know that as a moderator you can tell that.  I choose to read a number of posts of people I have set to ignore.  That is not a gotcha for you.

I sometimes like to know what people say even though they are on ignore.  I am a curious person.  But it is much better to have people on ignore than engage in uncivil and unprofitable discourse with them.  I will likely read a few more of your responses.  The point is, though, it will be my choice, and I will ignore more than I read, and I will benefit from that.

If there is a stronger form of ignore which prevents me reading your posts and which prevents you from posting on my threads, I would take that option.  Does such an option exist?

I seem to recall you saying you did not believe in free will/freedom of choice. Did you change your mind about that?