3 ms·
They aren't objecting to 'all' they are objecting to 'most'. Your post reads as LGTBQ is mostly furries, I suspect you meant that furries are mostly LGTBQ?
by burnished 4y ago
They aren't objecting to 'all' they are objecting to 'most'. Your post reads as LGTBQ is mostly furries, I suspect you meant that furries are mostly LGTBQ?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Kye 4y agoI'm a fan of this guideline: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It would be absurd to suggest queer people are mostly furries, so that interpretation is implausible. Act as though the person you reply to is rational, and you can discard the absurd. A strong, good faith reading could reasonably assume I don't know anything about Venn diagrams and didn't realize all the circles are equal when I posted that. I'm assuming good faith, and that's why I didn't just flag their post for trolling. Maybe they're not trolling and just don't practice this principle.
- burnished 4y agoWhy aren't you applying that principle to yourself here? You could be far more charitable and seek to bridge some misunderstanding. It feels like you don't understand that this expectation is symmetrical.
- Kye 4y agoGiving someone some small benefit of the doubt when they make a comment like that is about my limit. This isn't my first rodeo. It's on them to demonstrate their absurd, unreasonable, unfair, completely off the rails read of my comment wasn't meant to kick off a hell thread.