[crimsonalucard]

>I wish you had expanded originally, because I totally agree that GP made a similarly unfair generalization.

I don't think you fully understood what I'm saying. I don't believe the GP's generalization was unfair. I believe he made a very accurate generalization. I believe his generalization is just about as accurate as my generalization. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind what he is observing and letting him know that it is not the result of intentional discrimination.

[menacingly]

I felt as a I typed it that "unfair" wasn't the word I was looking for, but that's about all the investment I made in it. Something like "rounding error taken in aggregate", but your wording clarifies well.

Honestly, I don't bump into the 90s sitcom gay guy much, so that strikes me as inaccurate first, but I also don't have much experience with these infamous bros to know how wrong that is either.

Now I'm wondering if my inability to see these bros makes me likely to be one, like a trout thinking "what fish, dude? all I see are my friends"