Wolffhardt wrote:
Scenario A is certainly possible, though it's never happened here before... so until I hear otherwise, I'm inclined to dismiss that.
Scenario B is asinine. Sorry.
Scenario C isn't about inclusion. I don't believe trans/gays believe that hetero should have to date them lol. Equally asinine as scenario B, but for wildly different reasons.
Scenario D is the case for about what? 98%? 99%? of cases?
I admire your faith in innocent until proven guilty, but until we're in a court of law I don't have the same compassion. The belief that you're entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty is when someone is attempting to restrict your constitutional rights to freedom and pursuit of happiness. If you're a bigoted moron on an internet game, you don't get a presumption of innocence from people calling you such. If you'd like to explain why you aren't one, any adult can consider that with further conversation with you.
Since we're not in a court, there may never be a defense coming. Until that does, I'll continue to assume that anyone that can't manage to play a video game without making someone take the time to make this forum post is an absolute fucking moron.
Just to play devil's advocate, if A is plausible, why is B asinine? If anything, B is likely more plausible because we've all had someone either rip something we've said out of context, been too daft to get the context, or just pop in at the wrong section of the conversation and miss a thing that is pivotal in providing context. And context always matters. With respect to C, I've seen a few fringe people assert exactly that, specifically that straight people are bigoted if they're not attracted to a trans person.
As for the rest, I prefer to hold myself to a higher standard than courts rather than a lower one. Considering how often a professional judge, jury of 12 peers, professional defense attorney tasked with proving innocence and refuting allegations against the defendant, and prosecution that is tasked with meeting the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt come to a conclusion that is dead wrong, to me there's no value in lowering the standard just because I exist outside of that setting.
Honestly it doesn't look like there would be any further conversation from any adults if there were going to be a telling of the other side. I see one person making a claim, I see other people breaking their neck to fall on the 'believe the accuser, damn the accused!' sword, and only one person that's even willing to entertain the notion that there could be more to the matter than what's been presented. There would be name calling, posturing/grandstanding, morality policing, and attempts to shame dissenters into submission. But there wouldn't be adult conversation.