sneak wanted OP to be less openly queer in their personal blog for their own comfort, due to their own inability to imagine that the subculture OP is part of is more than their own narrow definition of it.
I guess the disrespect is clearer when one has grown up with its many forms, but assuming your request for more context comes out of a sincere desire to increase your understanding, I hope this helped.
> assuming your request for more context comes out of a sincere desire to increase your understanding, I hope this helped.
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt -- I was trying to approach it with the assumption that there's probably some perspective that I wasn't aware of.
> sneak wanted OP to be less openly queer in their personal blog for their own comfort
I can see how it may be interpreted that way. To me it read more like "hey, great content, presentation of it wasn't for me" in a way to convey feedback in the event the author wanted to better capture their attention. I didn't get the sense that there was an expectation that the author change their writing style to accommodate their preferences.
re-reading this, I don't think I appreciated that it was really in defense of the readers rather than the content
> I also ask you to be more considerate and respectful of other readers who may enjoy my work
I'm surmising that the real problem statement is:
> I'm sure there are non-sexual furries but the subculture is primarily a sexual one (same as with BDSM)
which I can appreciate as a generalization, I suppose I wouldn't have personally considered furries as under the queer umbrella, but I'm certainly no voice of authority on the matter. I suppose there's also the possibility that 'furries' was a dog whistle for 'queer', and being less charitable to sneak, I could better understand finding disrespect in the post.
So queer the fandom got booted out of the anime cons it spawned out of for being so. Unchained from the narrow views of the anime community, our power only grew.
> sneak wanted OP to be less openly queer in their personal blog for their own comfort, due to their own inability to imagine that the subculture OP is part of is more than their own narrow definition of it.
This is entirely false.
soft_dev_person, what I do want is for you to constrain your assertions about me to facts, and refrain from inaccurate or baseless speculation. It does neither you nor I any favors.
I understand that is what you want, but you cannot reserve yourself from being interpreted when posting on a public forum.
The language you chose to use and the details you chose to focus on is what triggered the response. If your point was that the cartoons was distracting, you could have made that clear in a less disrespectful way (or let the content speak for itself), or perhaps consider if it was worth contributing to the discussion.
Again, you double down on one definition of this particular subculture in another reply. It is reminiscent of how others have tried to define what certain subcultures related to sexual orientation (some now more mainstream) entail, while not being part of them, and I hope you understand how this can be problematic. I appreciate that this may not have been your intention.
I don't believe OP asserted anything to the contrary, could you highlight where you inferred that?
> I appreciate your feedback, but I also ask you to be more considerate and respectful of other readers who may enjoy my work.
It would be helpful if you would be willing to expand on how you found the OPs statements disrespectful or inconsiderate.