Image

Non-hetero communities get longer, better acronym

User avatar
[img]/images/various_uploads/LGBT_Expansion_Sign.jpg[/img]

Our reader (Sean L at GayPatriot) alerted us of this report by our colleagues at The Babylon Bee:


Initialism Referring To Non-Hetero Communities Now Longer Than Alphabet


NEW YORK, NY—GLAAD announced Wednesday an updated initialism which should be used moving forward to refer to the world's expanding list non-hetero communities. Weighing in at 30 characters, the new title has surpassed the English alphabet in length and now includes alphanumeric characters and symbols.

“Whereas before, people would refer to ‘LGBT,' ‘LGBTQ,' ‘LGTBIQ,' ‘LGBTTQQIAAP,' or various other collections of letters, we now advise exclusive the use of the umbrella acronym LGBTTQQFAIPBGD7@bRs?PLWb+2Z9A2,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD in a press statement.

“We owe it to the LGBTTQQFAIPBGD7@bRs?PLWb+2Z9A2 community not to be belittling or patronizing, which is why we strongly urge the memorization and widespread adoption of this new term in all written and voice communications, effective immediately.”

Wrapping up the announcement, Ellis disclosed that GLAAD had taken the first steps toward changing their organization's name to LGBTTQQFAIPBGD7@bRs?PLWb+2Z9A2AAD.

Our reader then added some of his own reporting to this very equal installment of the Current Truth:

GLBTism is going to collapse under its own self-contradiction. Where once it was alliance of people who felt sexual attraction to members of their own sex (and pederasts, in the first few years, but GLAAD wants you to ignore that), but then that T got thrown in, and suddenly it turned into the “not straight club.”

Ls and feminist straight allies argue that Gs should not be included because they bear the dreaded Y-chromosome and are making headway in marginalizing Gs within the “community”; Gs and Ls marginalize Bs and review them as something akin to category traitors due to their heterosexual leanings; and G, Ls, and Bs dislike Ts because Ts' “issue” is that they do not accept their biological sex, whereas the others are united by acceptance of their sex and are attracted to their biological sex.

The Queers are in a circular debate with Ts over the two groups are one and the same, or subsets of each other.

Then you have the Asexuals and their various subdivisions and permutations, who seem to be mostly made up of people with low libidos who felt the need to get in on the sexual categorization craze.

Furthermore, you see the various groups trying to sabotage each other. Gs and Ls argue that Bs don't really exist. Ts argue that Gs and Ls are actually Ts. Et cetera. Throw in the political fanatics of the groups versus the “Hey, I just like guys/gals, leave me alone,” and the “intersectional” GLBTers, and you have a cultural Yugoslavia.

User avatar
Red Square wrote:...and you have a cultural Yugoslavia.

Image
"Sir, it's just an ethnic cleansing, its a minor procedure, very common...

take a deep breath, relax, you may feel some pressure..."

User avatar
Red Square wrote:Our reader then added ... :
... you see the various groups trying to sabotage each other. Gs and Ls argue that Bs don't really exist. Ts argue that Gs and Ls are actually Ts. Et cetera. Throw in the political fanatics of the groups versus the “Hey, I just like guys/gals, leave me alone,” and the “intersectional” GLBTers, and you have a cultural Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia? Balkanization? that's a pretty low bar here, ain't it?

To systematize (here we go again) : use Cartesian Product ! By Marx, use Cartesian Product !!!

User avatar
Ivan the Stakhanovets wrote:
Red Square wrote:...and you have a cultural Yugoslavia.

Image
"Sir, it's just an ethnic cleansing, its a minor procedure, very common...

take a deep breath, relax, you may feel some pressure..."

Looks like a great way to brainwash progressives !

Krasnodar wrote:Looks like a great way to brainwash progressives !

Channeling my inner Carlin:

1) They aren't already?
2) It assumes there is something there to wash
3) Isn't that a double-negative and/or oxymoron?
4) Could that be classified as 'ideological cleansing'?
5) Is a brainwashed progressive a conservative?


 
POST REPLY