Poll of the Day > Looks like they took 2 more letters fron the alphabet for themselves again

(+) Yeah! (+)

Its now LGBTQIA+

When is this shit gonna end ffs?

---

Well maybe they should just use...like I do...

People are people.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

People are people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGnX-MbYE4
---

You're like 4-5 years behind on realizing this. It seems a little redundant to me, given that "queer" was added as the general-purpose "other" option (since it basically means "any form of sexual/gender non-conformity not otherwise specified"), but there's room to defend specifically recognizing more significant subgroups within that.

---

Imagine being so dumb and emotionally stunted that this gets under your skin lmao

---

"Waaaah! They're using up all "our" letters!"

lmao cry more

---

thedeerzord posted...

gonna end

You would think that the plus-sign at the end would invalidate the necessity of having to update the acronym every other year or so. At this point, it might be safe to say that it is entirely redundant.

adjl posted...

"queer" was added as the general-purpose "other" option

If that's the case, then I am curious about what the point of adding the plus-sign was.
---

When looking at "LGBTQ", what the fuck is the Q for if it doesn't cover all the shit they keep adding other letters for? This is some braindead shit right here.

---

The more upset you get, the more letters we take. Keep it up and we'll start taking Greek letters too

---

STP Eclair

---

SilentSeph posted...

The more upset you get, the more letters we take. Keep it up and we'll start taking Greek letters too

Nobody is upset, and it isn't relevant anyway, because the LGBTQABCDEFGXYZ community has added so many letters, nobody is even excluded from it. At this point, we're just talking about the whole of society, or the general public. lol

---

adjl posted...

You're like 4-5 years behind on realizing this.

Seems a bit late to get upset TC did no one let you in on the news. Then again it's no surprise the guy who was convinced Meghan Markle was white isn't quick on the uptake.

---

Who cares?

---

GEKGanon posted...

Nobody is upset

Funny because you always sound upset in these kinda topics. Always. I've seen your multi page rambling posts/debates over on Politics board with huge walls of text talking bout trans people etc. You are way too invested for somebody who shouldn't care. Don't bring that crap over here too.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

Funny because you always sound upset in these kinda topics. Always. I've seen your multi page rambling posts/debates over on Politics board with huge walls of text talking bout trans people etc. You are way too invested for somebody who shouldn't care. Don't bring that crap over here too.

Nah.

---

EclairReturns posted...

If that's the case, then I am curious about what the point of adding the plus-sign was.

Far as I can tell, the same reason, people have just forgotten that Q is "other." If anything, Q should just have been moved to the end.

GEKGanon posted...

Nobody is upset, and it isn't relevant anyway, because the LGBTQABCDEFGXYZ community has added so many letters, nobody is even excluded from it. At this point, we're just talking about the whole of society, or the general public. lol

It's not at that point, since it does still all fall under the umbrella of atypical sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions (which axiomatically excludes typical ones) and the movement still works toward improving acceptance specifically for that group, but it does make the name a lot more cumbersome. The point of acronyms is to be succinct. Making sure that the group's acronym explicitly reflects every possible component of the group is very much at odds with that goal.

---

GEKGanon posted...

Nah.

Are you denying you make skyscrapers of text on these subjects arguing with people? Unless I mixed you up with someone else. When I saw this username posting on here I actually groaned irl. It's not at all surprising you are one of the first people to jump in this topic.

---

adjl posted...

Far as I can tell, the same reason, people have just forgotten that Q is "other." If anything, Q should just have been moved to the end.

It's not at that point, since it does still all fall under the umbrella of atypical sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions (which axiomatically excludes typical ones) and the movement still works toward improving acceptance specifically for that group, but it does make the name a lot more cumbersome. The point of acronyms is to be succinct. Making sure that the group's acronym explicitly reflects every possible component of the group is very much at odds with that goal.

It isn't actually even an acronym.

Acronyms are pronounceable words formed from the first letter of each word, like "SCUBA", or "LASER". "LGBTQ" isn't a pronounceable word.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

Are you denying you make skyscrapers of text on these subjects arguing with people? Unless I mixed you up with someone else. When I saw this username posting on here I actually groaned irl. It's not at all surprising you are one of the first people to jump in this topic.

It's the internet. Everyone argues with everyone, you're hardly narrowing it down. Sure, I argue with people. I typically don't try to "wall of text" against anyone.

That being said, if you're not a fan, I must be more powerful than I thought, since I'm seemingly able to prevent you from clicking "Ignore" on my posts.

---

imagine being so goddamn dumb and ignorant that youre upset over something that happened like 5 years ago.

you make a lot of shitty topics.

GEKGanon posted...

It isn't actually even an acronym.

Acronyms are pronounceable words formed from the first letter of each word

Acronyms don't have to be pronounceable. For PR purposes, it's usually good idea to try to make them that way, since it makes them easier to remember, but the only defining criterion is that they're made up of some subset of the first letters of the constituent words. FBI is no less of an acronym than FAQ.

---

adjl posted...

Acronyms don't have to be pronounceable. For PR purposes, it's usually good idea to try to make them that way, since it makes them easier to remember, but the only defining criterion is that they're made up of some subset of the first letters of the constituent words. FBI is no less of an acronym than FAQ.

By definition, acronyms have to be pronouncable.

acronym
/akrnim/

noun

1. an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. ASCII, NASA ).

Something that isn't pronounceable isn't an acronym, it is just an abbreviation, likely an initialism.

---

GEKGanon posted...

It's the internet. Everyone argues with everyone, you're hardly narrowing it down. Sure, I argue with people. I typically don't try to "wall of text" against anyone.

That being said, if you're not a fan, I must be more powerful than I thought, since I'm seemingly able to prevent you from clicking "Ignore" on my posts.

It stands out because of how utterly obnoxious it is. I just told you I've seen you arguing for pages and pages. Way more than a wall. You and a select few people are the reason those trans topics on Politics always seem to go to 500. It's always the same handful of people jumping in derailing everything. And I've never ignored/blocked someone on here. There are far worse posters than you I engaged with. I just was on my guard when I first saw you posting on this board too, because I expected just this scenario to happen. Predictable.

---

them alphabet boys are at it again
oh we arent talking about the police?

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

It stands out because of how utterly obnoxious it is. I just told you I've seen you arguing for pages and pages. Way more than a wall. You and a select few people are the reason those trans topics on Politics always seem to go to 500. It's always the same handful of people jumping in derailing everything. And I've never ignored/blocked someone on here. There are far worse posters than you I engaged with. I just was on my guard when I first saw you posting on this board too, because I expected just this scenario to happen. Predictable.

Okay, well I do ignore people, so I'll just toss you on the pile.

---

Cacciato posted...

imagine being so goddamn dumb and ignorant that youre upset over something that happened like 5 years ago.

For real, and then imagine being so dumb and ignorant you come into this shit topic to piss and moan like Gek here and then claim you're not butthurt lmao we see right through your bullshit genius gtfo

---

Far-Queue posted...

For real, and then imagine being so dumb and ignorant you come into this shit topic to piss and moan like Gek here and then claim you're not butthurt lmao we see right through your bullshit genius gtfo

Okay, sure. Just like I told the guy I just ignored, I'm not stopping you from ignoring me. lol

---

GEKGanon posted...

By definition, acronyms have to be pronouncable.

acronym
/akrnim/

noun

1. an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. ASCII, NASA ).

Something that isn't pronounceable isn't an acronym, it is just an abbreviation, likely an initialism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initialism

What is the difference between the words acronym and initialism?
Acronym is a fairly recent word, dating from the 1940s, although acronyms existed long before we gave them that name. The term was preceded in English by the word initialism, meaning an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of a phrase, and which has been in use since the late 19th century.
Some people feel strongly that acronym should only be used for terms like NATO, which is pronounced as a single word, and that initialism should be used if the individual letters are all pronounced distinctly, as with FBI. Our research shows that acronym is commonly used to refer to both types of abbreviations.

There was a time when the distinction was considered meaningful, but the language has moved beyond that because it's largely pointless.

---

adjl posted...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initialism

There was a time when the distinction was considered meaningful, but the language has moved beyond that because it's largely pointless.

Oh, well that's just lazy.

---

Far-Queue posted...

For real, and then imagine being so dumb and ignorant you come into this shit topic to piss and moan like Gek here and then claim you're not butthurt lmao we see right through your bullshit genius gtfo

He's literally doing everything I said I've seen him do on other boards, while simultaneously denying it. I'm sorry he ignored me because I like taking these clowns apart. He has serious hangups about gay/trans people. And can't help but bombard topics concerning them.

---

GEKGanon posted...

Oh, well that's just lazy.

I'd call it "efficient." There's no value in the distinction, so why perpetuate it? English has enough redundancy already.

---

adjl posted...

I'd call it "efficient." There's no value in the distinction, so why perpetuate it? English has enough redundancy already.

If you can make a pronounceable word from abbreviating one thing, but not make a pronounceable word from abbreviating something else, why wouldn't there be value in having distinct words to indicate them as different things? It is only redundant if the end result is the same, which this is not.

---

I have heard a lot of different acronyms being proposed instead of just appending the current model.

Like QUILTBAG

IronBornCorps posted...

I have heard a lot of different acronyms being proposed instead of just appending the current model.

Like QUILTBAG

At least QUILTBAG is memorable. If you asked me to take LGBTQ out to the next letter, I wouldn't be able to tell you what the fuck letter actually comes next.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

He's literally doing everything I said I've seen him do on other boards, while simultaneously denying it. I'm sorry he ignored me because I like taking these clowns apart. He has serious hangups about gay/trans people. And can't help but bombard topics concerning them.

Not hard to do, them being dumbass clowns and all


---

Queer (an overall catch for both sexuality and gender)
Undecided (for those who are still unsure, and/or "in the closet")
Intersex (those with conditions that do not adhere to the typical binary model)
Lesbian (catch all for Women, Sapphic, and Fem relationships)
Transgender (umbrella for all non-cis individuals)
Bisexual (umbrella for all sexualities involving multiple genders)
Ace (includes Asexual/Agender/Aromantic)
Gay (catch all for Men, Andro, and Masc relationships)

I just happen to like this one, I think it includes everyone, and further labels can be created as sub branches.

GEKGanon posted...

If you can make a pronounceable word from abbreviating one thing, but not make a pronounceable word from abbreviating something else, why wouldn't there be value in having distinct words to indicate them as different things? It is only redundant if the end result is the same, which this is not.

What value do you see there? They are indeed different end results, but if you can't come up with some sort of practical value for identifying that difference, it's not a particularly meaningful one.

IronBornCorps posted...

I have heard a lot of different acronyms being proposed instead of just appending the current model.

Like QUILTBAG

I like it, but with the current trend of trying to incorporate new subdivisions, I feel like that would necessitate switching the acronym around so often as to just get confusing. At this point, the LGBT root is so entrenched that making anything new catch on would be a challenge, no matter how catchy it is.

---

Add as many letters as they want, just know I'm gonna have trouble remembering them

---

I also have concerns about it catching on as a slur as well.

How long until someone says "****ing quiltbags!"?

adjl posted...

What value do you see there? They are indeed different end results, but if you can't come up with some sort of practical value for identifying that difference, it's not a particularly meaningful one.

The "practical value" for having different words to describe different things is always that it makes language more concise.

---

GEKGanon posted...

The "practical value" for having different words to describe different things is always that it makes language more concise.

Can you provide three plausible real-world examples in which differentiating between between "acronym" and "initialism" actually makes the sentences in question more concise? Bear in mind that "initialism" is 66% longer than "acronym" if spoken aloud and 43% longer if written, so it's at a clear disadvantage right out of the gate. Also consider that "initialism" is not a word with which most people are familiar, so you should also account for having to explain it at least once per audience.

Sure, the general concept of "we have different words to describe different things" is typically going to be a positive, but not if there's no meaningful difference between the things in question. That just means an extra word for people to learn and confuse with the other term, without any actual benefit.

IronBornCorps posted...

I also have concerns about it catching on as a slur as well.

How long until someone says "****ing quiltbags!"?

I feel like that's not a huge risk if it's adopted aggressively enough by the community themselves. Consider what happened with the T-word: It was a perfectly reasonable abbreviated form of "transsexual," nicely suited for easy use in casual conversation, but because most of the people using it were transphobic dickwads (since society at large didn't really bother talking about transsexuals very often), their usage became the dominant one and it became associated with violence and hatred.

Now, however, the LGBTQ community and its allies generally outnumber the dickwads. If they adopt a new term and begin using it in a non-derogatory manner, that should overwhelm dickwads that try to use it hatefully, preventing hatred from becoming the dominant connotation behind it. It's catchy enough to be used as a slur, but I don't think the people that would try to use it as such have enough power anymore to really make that happen.

---

I feel the same way, which is why I still shared it.

adjl posted...

but I don't think the people that would try to use it as such have enough power anymore to really make that happen.

I can't say I share your confidence in that.

cant wait until us c's are big enough to get our letter into the big leagues....

---

In related news, DeSantis just signed a bill which will ban men from competing in womens sports.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-signs-transgender-bill-20210601-hwsueb3bi5anxkx7xswypmm2um-story.html

GEKGanon posted...

Nobody is upset

TC sure is

---

adjl posted...

Can you provide three plausible real-world examples in which differentiating between between "acronym" and "initialism" actually makes the sentences in question more concise? Bear in mind that "initialism" is 66% longer than "acronym" if spoken aloud and 43% longer if written, so it's at a clear disadvantage right out of the gate. Also consider that "initialism" is not a word with which most people are familiar, so you should also account for having to explain it at least once per audience.

Sure, the general concept of "we have different words to describe different things" is typically going to be a positive, but not if there's no meaningful difference between the things in question. That just means an extra word for people to learn and confuse with the other term, without any actual benefit.

I feel like that is a really weird ask; that's like asking to provide 3 plausible real-world examples in which differentiating between synonyms and antonyms makes the sentences in question more concise.

They are different things. They should be differentiated. Differentiating one thing from a different thing is inherently more concise than treating similar things as the same.

Someone could easily mistake an acronym like "laser" for a word, as it is pronounceable as such, but they'd almost certainly not mistake "FBI" for a word, and would instead immediately recognize it as initialism. Why then should they not be differentiated, when they are not treated similarly?

---

its crazy how mad people get about an acronym that you literally never need to say

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

its crazy how mad people get about an acronym that you literally never need to say

I mean, at this point, even if someone NEEDED to say it, most people probably couldn't even remember it to say it. Without scrolling up, I couldn't tell you what comes after LGBTQ.

---

I'm a S.

---