Why do some of the summoning symbols look like a circuit diagram- OH MY GYAD

I don't even understand all the alleged different sexualities out there nowadays. It's become as convoluted and overly-specific as the categorization of metal music.

rude

>>71645
I haven't seen most of these flags. Why would the lesbian flag have a greataxe on it.

>>71644
Meh, it's a game people in that community play, little of it is terribly important. People expect young people to be a certain way (super horny for the opposite sex) so anything outside of that gets a label, because why the fuck not?

Some things are just recognizing and naming things that have always existed, like intersex.

>>71646
I just meant that I don't understand what all the labels are supposed to signify. I understand the "we're special and we want everyone to know it" game. I think that game itself is counterproductive to the idea of tolerance and acceptance though (a thing which everyone with their own little label claims to want), since it actively promotes exclusivity through strict categorization. It also further emphasizes the idea that heterosexuality is "normal" and everything else is not, by virtue of needing to declare that they're different.

>>71650
It's not really strict categorization, and it's hardly exclusive. Hell, Asexuality has a thing where it basically lets anyone call themselves asexual if it they feel it prudent at any point in time.

It makes things easier in the community, even if it's confusing to people outside of it. If I say I'm genderqueer, people want to know what kind of genderqueer, hence more labels. You can deny the use of gender roles altogether, feel like you're totally in between them, feel that there is a spectrum but you're not on it, or feel that you move between them. Some of them are contradictory in terms, but they are all inclusive to people who feel a certain way.

You can just take the attitude that gender is just a societal construct, which is valid, even if some transgender people might disagree with it. However, you're both outside the traditional frame of thinking, which is that men and women are born with certain indelible attributes that they shouldn't deviate from or else they go to hell or whatever. THAT is the divisive thinking, and it won't go away until the "other" stuff gets more exposure.

Here's a tip, if you don't understand something, your first reaction shouldn't be to reject and hate it and try to delegitimize it. It's disingenuous to say "I don't understand this" and then say "it absolutely promotes exclusivity through division for... reasons!"

>>71653
I would greatly like to know what your definition of "unity and tolerance" is. Giving a name to something makes it easier to unify and promote tolerance. If "lesbian" and "gay" didn't have clear names, they would be more difficult to understand tolerate.

What I don't get is why people have such a vitriolic pushback to the idea of "special snowflakes". The idea here is that everyone's sexuality is unique, and people shouldn't be shamed for wanting to live a certain way or be attracted to certain people.

If you just want to reject all labels, I'd be all for that. If the goal here is to just get people to see romance and relationships in the traditional framework, well, those days were gone long before this hyper categorization.

>>71662
>Unity and tolerance is ignoring the labels that don't matter and focusing on the ones that do.

That's a pretty arbitrary definition right there. Relevant to the thread, but arbitrary. Tolerance means not caring how other people choose to live their lives (and by extension, call themselves), unity is about working together toward some purpose despite the differences people may have.

Labels can become problematic, but it's usually only when they are imposed upon people by others. People identify themselves as a "straight ally", there's no initiation to get in.

Really, few of these are truly arbitrary. "Asexual" is no different from Lesbian/Gay, labels people have accepted over time. Many of them relate to genderqueer, which as I mentioned is a large world in and of itself, and those differences all have to do with how people see themselves, the gender spectrum, and where they fit inside it.

It's like political parties, in that sense. You can be an "Independent" but that tells you relatively little about what they actually believe. A person can be an Independent because they are very far to the left or right of either of the parties, or because they feel they are more centrist. Others may simply reject the party system in general. Someone could categorize their political beliefs in countless ways, and they'd all be legitimate, in the end. Democrats and Republicans as well can be sub-categorized into a wide variety of beliefs, as well as which beliefs they feel more strongly.

You can reject the labels altogether, and it would be nice if humanity was an animal that could do that, but most simply can't. It makes it hard to discuss these types of issues without first defining things. Again, it's hard for people who don't even fully grasp the idea and complexities of simple transgender folk to subsequently understand things like genderqueer.

Orientation (who you are attracted to) is often mixed up with gender identity, which can confuse these things. There are a few that might border on arbitrary, and I could agree that dividing people between straight allies and everyone else isn't entirely helpful, but most of those do signify a unique category of relationships, sexual attraction, or self-identity and as such are no different from "lesbian" or "transgender woman".

>>71659
>It makes things easier in the community, even if it's confusing to people outside of it.

That statement sums up exactly what I'm talking about though. They isolate themselves from those "outside the community" simply by HAVING an inside/outside mentality (granted, there's plenty of people on the other side doing the same thing, but you don't "fight fire with fire") and then proceed to draw more lines between each other.

You mentioned, in response to >>71653 the idea of putting a name to something in order to promote understanding and tolerance. Ok, I'm with you on that as far as things like "gay" and "lesbian" go (setting aside, for the moment, the term paper that could be written about the division between those two groups, and the effectiveness of promoting tolerance, even within "the community", by ascribing a name to something), but "autosexual" and "asexual"? I wasn't aware there was any great intolerance for such groups UNTIL they started bandying about titles for themselves. That shit smacks of hangers-on and people just trying to get in sexual-orientation-as-a-minority like it was a fad.

Also, I feel that perhaps I wasn't clear enough in that I understand perfectly well the various concepts that people claim to identify with and that what I haven't understood is simply all the nomenclature (since it seems to expand on a daily basis).

I'm right there with you though on just getting rid of labels. That's my whole point, really. I feel we're getting to a point where all the labels are just bogging society down and preventing propagation of the idea that all people are just people.

>>71668
I still think that's a pretty big jump to make. The reason you're seeing graphics like that and discussion about them on the internet is because people want to send the message that it's okay if you identify as these things. Right now it might only be really useful within a community filled with people who know all the terms, but the goal is outreach.

While asexuals or whoever might not have had "fag drag" levels of intimidation and persecution, there have always been those that simply had no interest in sex for one reason or another, but were forced to have it because of societal pressure. What? You don't like sex? Are you human? Sneer sneer. I'll show you how ballza sex can be. Wink.

And not having a name or any real recognition of these things made people feel more crazy or unwanted or unaccepted. Like I said, not as bad as the shit some groups have faced, but it's not insignificant in a culture where traditionally everyone is expected to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have babies. Really any group that deviates from that model (including those that simply don't wish to have children) are discouraged, misunderstood, shamed, or marginalized in some way.

Now that most people are coming around to understanding and at least tolerating gays/lesbians beyond "demons from hell looking to corrupt your children", others are looking to say "you know lesbians? well this is sorta of the same, just rarer." I don't know if we'll ever get to the point where these labels become more commonly used or whether they might evolve and/or consolidate.

It may still seem all hard to grasp, and that's understandable, and that's where the issue of representation and exposure comes in. It's hard to understand genderfluid because most people don't have a reference for it. Some have suggested that BMO from Adventure Time is a conscious or unconscious effort at creating a genderqueer or nongendered character, despite them not being human or having anything to do with sex.

Would mentally ill people be less stigmatized if you eliminated the words "schizophrenia" or "bipolar"? Would racism be reduced if you eliminated the words "black" or "Native American"? If you stopped using the word "man" or "woman", would sexism be gone? If we stopped using different words for different species, and instead referred to everything as "living things", human or not, would we act nicely to plants and animals?

All labels are is a way to identify what we've discovered and categorize it neatly so we can discuss it more easily. As we learn more about any subject, we develop more intricate, more in-depth language to reflect our understanding. That isn't a sign of "fostering division" or "culture wars". It's a sign of us becoming more informed. The fact we didn't have the label "asexual" for quite a long time did not mean they did not exist, or that they were not discriminated against. It just means we didn't have the capacity to describe the world to its fullest extent.

> but "autosexual" and "asexual"? I wasn't aware there was any great intolerance for such groups UNTIL they started bandying about titles for themselves. That shit smacks of hangers-on and people just trying to get in sexual-orientation-as-a-minority like it was a fad.

Of course you weren't aware of any intolerance until they started identifying themselves as something that existed. Without the label, there was no capacity to understand it in the first place, in the same way you can't understand molecules without words like "carbon", "hydrogen", and "atom". Creating labels and words is the first step in understanding something. If you spent your entire life not knowing there were gays and lesbians, how could you possibly be aware society discriminates against them?

>If you spent your entire life not knowing there were gays and lesbians, how could you possibly be aware society discriminates against them?

How can you descriminate against something you have no idea exists?

>>71683

I'm sure that before they had the capacity to use language to describe them, the ancient predecessors of man had no problem brutally killing and torturing other tribes they were in conflict with.

>>71684
Paleolithic man also didn't force Negroes to use separate beaches and restaurants, I'm not sure I see your point.

>>71683

Jesus as much as sentenced everyone outside of the West to eternal hell fire a number of times in the New Testament. That's pretty fierce discrimination if you ask me.

I wonder how many of these gender and sexual identities will start forming bizarre alliances and start having elaborate gang wars like all the gangs that allied into either the Folk Nation or the People Nation.

Who wouldn't want to see a fight between, for instance, the Latin Queens and the Gayngster Disciples?

>>71638
>muh dadaism
>muh "spiritual" racism
>muh co-opting of Guénon
>muh drugs
>muh 1337 SS guard
>muh life as an idle rich
>muh chacra
>muh inspiration to terrorists
>muh abolishment of industry
>muh hand-made wheel chair

(USER LISTENS TO JUSTIN BEIBER)