Rob200

This form however seems well thought out overall, because they have an 'other' and a prefer not to say choice. Anything they didn't specifically include is I guess technically is included, under the 'other' choice. Very vaguely.

Yeah, I mean sure it's good that they are showing they know those identities exist. But this info could be used for any purpose, imagine being asked this in Russia. The government 'could' potentially literally target you in a bad way knowing this about you.

In the u.s right now, another example, so it's one thing if they are representing these minorities, but it's another if they are collecting data about you. For who knows what purposes.

In the u.s, the main parties are the republicans and the democrats. 3rd parties don't receive much news coverage because, one or the other main parties, also dominate the news media in the u.s. Not many people know that there were attempts for a socialist party in the u.s, because the news will not cover them as much as they will cover "their hatred for trump."

average people in the u.s generally (they aren't people who study a lot of literature, just general people.) They even understand that both sides aren't perfect. They know.

the issue is.

When it comes to one political party vs the other, guess where people are going to always flock to. If it isn't one, it's the other, because to them, it's only that other one that might have a chance of making the change they want. 3rd party political parties have a hard time gaining traction.

It's one thing to Ubisoft, (or any company under capitalism) if it's just a small few fascist who are racist against their current character choices. But if Ubisoft is risking facing actual legislation in a major market, or a ban. They are going to respond, because they would loss a significant market. They don't want to lose an entire market where they can profit from.

In this case, it isn't really about minorities, is this a little authoritarian, possibly on Japans part, but really, Ubisoft needs this game to profit as best as possible, which is why it can't afford to lose a large market right now. With its low stocks of late, things aren't looking good for the company. They are at risk at being sold off at some point.

Some more specific sources on games representing marginalized identities. A continuation on that list of games I showed you.

Splatoon 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4V3sVdigU Hair style is no longer decided by gender, unlike in earlier entries of the game.

Spyro 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1V8HZPPoaI Spyro represents ace vibes in one part of the ending cutscenes for the game. For a PS1 game particularly this is important. After seeing Mario saving Peach in another castle for how many so times.

I have a few things, along with specific examples.

1. There was a glad study on LGBTQ+ representation in games.

Studies indicate a significant presence of LGBTQ+ individuals within the gaming community. Notably, GLAAD's research, based on Nielsen surveys, highlights that a considerable percentage of active gamers identify as LGBTQ+. Specifically, the GLAAD report shows that 17% of active gamers are LGBTQ+.

2. There is LGBTQ+ representation in games you probably wouldn't expect.

a. In Splatoon 3 on the Nintendo Switch, you have your inkling and Octoling avatars, but they are not gender locked meaning you can have voices of the opposite gender, despite the hair style. Could also be looked at as representing feminism.

b. In a Spyro 3 Year of the Dragon, Spyro the dragon originally released on the PS1, shows some asexual aspects when hunter and bianca kiss in an ending cutscene. Ace vibes. Tells Sparx to look away,

3. Fan posts, allow marginialled queer and LGBTQ fans of a franchise to have their side represented, even if in an uncannon way. Very important for representation.

In one side, it seems like a win, on the other, Bluesky is capitalizing off of Meta hate?

Bluesky made more money selling T-shirts mocking Mark Zuckerberg in one day than it has in two years of selling custom domains

While their past behavior was inexcusable, not many people actually know about aromantic and asexual identities, when most people think of LGBTQ+ the default stereotype is trans, gay and bi people. People don't actually know that it extends beyond that, because of that stereotype.

I do give the op credit for opening up and talking about it, and moving on pass their past bad experience for a better future, which seemed to be their end goal here.

I agree with, the post op on this, because look. If a person identifying as one gender is cross dressing to look a certain way, they are not trans just from that because at the end of the day it is just cloths. Also where you say, "You don’t think about how you respond to people’s missteps" you seem to be broadly talking more than just simply cross dressing, but since you didn't say anything specific I won't judge you, but that is suspicious.

Ok, so as an aromantic person, (which is similar to Ace.) I got to say that Asexual and Aromantic people absolutely do fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella.

In fact, in the "LGBTQIA" the a stands for asexual.

Not many people actually know the following. (all of it)

Here is how this works in practice. I think this could help you out with getting over the grudge, to help you better understand the entirety of the LGBTQ+ umbrella.

LGBTQ, isn't exclusive to just gay, and bi people, nor transpeople (they are included under that of course) Lgbtq has to do with, standards that are different from the normal, being straight, getting married as a straight couple, and all that.

asexual, particularly is a marginalized identity, because as a person that is that isn't attracted to a person sexually, that right there is a marginalized voice. People have been made fun of for not having a love one, i'm sure of it.

Straight people can technically fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella if they meet certain marginalized identities. If you don't believe me. A trans person, can technically identify as straight, based off their gender identity if they wanted to be straight. See but a trans person is still a marginalized person. The + in the LGBTQ means that the identity doesn't end there, it's always evolving.

But if you are straight in the traditional way, which asexual is *not the traditional straight identity, then you would not be marginalized.

edit: wanted to clarify that, just because someone *is asexual does not mean they will be straight. and an sexual person may still feel a bonding, or romantic attraction, but nothing sexual. Based on the identity meaning.

As long that you have all their accounts are blocked they shouldn't be able to harass you anymore unless they create more alts, which if they are doing this you're gonna probably have to keep blocking them as they come.

I don't know why they targeted your post over you talking about your experience, or personal perspective. While it seems like you're just going off of your perspective, or personal experience. They go onto your post dismissing your post and just trying to be better than you. Which is a toxic behavior. Especially if it is repetititve.

Now if it was a one time thing, maybe I would had said, well maybe they might not had meant anything but you showed a number of encounteres form this user.

Had you reporting all his accounts to the specific instance they are on? About their behavior toward you?