[iinnPP]

The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

People don't have to do what anyone believes is best for them. They don't need anyone pressuring them to behave a certain way. They don't need that from society, or anybody. What they wear is their's to choose. What they spend time on is their own. They can do whatever and be whoever and nobody else is in any way an authority of what is or isn't good for anyone other than themselves.

Edit: I changed single person wording to reflect the actual purpose of the message.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

this is an assumption you made, if anybody did, as I did not

> People don't have to do what you believe is best for them.

I didn't claim otherwise here, either

you seem extremely confused at what I said, so please re-read it, because I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

[iinnPP]

My comment wasn't really meant for you. It wasn't a criticism of you. It was a message indicating that everyone should be free to make their own decisions and shouldn't feel pressured based on how anyone else perceives them. Perhaps it was poorly worded.

You however, tossed in a "are you mad?" I won't engage with you further.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> My comment wasn't really meant for you.

In the future, to avoid such misunderstandings, it would be best if post replies were replies to posts.

> You however, tossed in a "are you mad?" I won't engage with you further.

Not sure what imaginary "are you mad?" you're referring to, but nobody can force you to respond to the actual points in the posts you reply to, so go ahead and don't.

[FrontierPsych]

>I didn't claim otherwise here, either

You implied it, you didn't say it.

>I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

To him and to me, you didn't literally say it, but you implied it. You don't have to say something explicitly to have people know what you meant. Certainly Donald Trump didn't explicitly say for people to attempt an insurrection, but every one of those cretins knew exactly what he was saying.

>perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

On the other hand, the poster you are replying to did not say nor imply anything of the sort of thing that you are saying.

>we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

You are using emotionally laden wording here, rather than just having a healthy dialogue where you disagree.

>BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

Because the person you responded to above didn't use the word privilege. I did in another comment, which I just explained in my response to you on the other thread. I just logged back on right now and answered your other statement to me.

If you are going to respond, perhaps respond to only the other one as it is difficult to have two separate conversations happening at the same time.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> You implied it

> you didn't literally say it, but you implied it.

Did I? It doesn't seem like I did, perhaps you wrongly inferred it.

> You are using emotionally laden wording here, rather than just having a healthy dialogue where you disagree

Am I? It seems like I'm just stating the facts, your emotionality in response to them is on you (and totally normal, given these facts)

[FrontierPsych]

whatever you say, dude.