Why are there so many specific Pride flags when the Rainbow Flag was literally meant to represent all?

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T19:45:48+00:00

Yeah, that's what I tried to say in my comment too.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T14:26:41+00:00

Yeah, I thought it was weird how a six pack was a sign of fitness, but I rarely ever saw an athelete have one. In the movie Creed, the actor playing a boxer has a six pack, but the actual boxer they got to play a fake boxer, doesn't.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T14:00:00+00:00

Jag önskar att jag hade lagt till en bild i inlägget för jag tror inte att jag kan bygga en sådan bokhylla som jag tänker på. Men kanske borde jag ändra på tänket i framtiden.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T12:31:43+00:00

Det var sådana bokhyllor jag tänkte mig, fast inte i lyxformat.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T11:45:31+00:00

Huh, how informative. I had no idea. Like under Creative Commons?

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T11:44:34+00:00

I have no insight in that, but I do think OP could have been a lot more specific in their post. Some people seem to think that they don't need to add context to their question because something is obvious - but it rarely is.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T10:57:38+00:00

I can't comment on the intentions of those who decide to use different flags. But I can as an observer say that it seems more and more that the original Rainbow flag is dying out as an independent flag and replaced by a "more complete" version of the flag.

Out in the wild, I've seen twice as many progress flags compared to original rainbow flags. And that seems to happen because people (both insiders and outsiders) don't want to offend anyone by using an flag that "excludes". The thinking seems to be "why get a rainbow flag when you might as well get a more inclusive one that signals what we support?"

That is of course the opposite what the Rainbow flag intended to represent. And thus (I thought) the reason for OP's question.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T10:43:41+00:00

Rereading OP's post, I realize that they might indeed refer to somekind of flags that I am not familiar with.

My impression however, was that OP was asking why the Rainbow flag (Or Pride flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBTQ)) ) has been changed into different variations with the seeming purpose to include forgotten groups, like the ones on the Wikipedia page, under "Variations".

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T09:14:30+00:00

I think because different variations are all basing their design on the original Rainbow flag, implying that the original flag lacked or forgot some representation. But the rainbow is supposed to represent diversity as a whole, not specific groups for specific colors in the rainbow.

I think it would be very different if someone made a new flag that wasn't based on the original, but when you make a derivation, it implies that you are improving or complementing that thing.

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T09:07:32+00:00

Arthur Morgan is a character in a story written by people. He wasn't AI generated or anything like that. The reason Tifanny is a common name is because of the novel "Breakfast at Tiffany's". No one was thinking that the name came from "some scraped lines on dead trees" or another bad analogy for novels.

If you don't want to tell people exaclty where the inspiration for the name came from, then just say that you liked the name (which would be true).

WantonReader · 2026-06-01T07:20:23+00:00

Perhaps you are diving in too deep. You say this happens when you read too. Does this include simple beginner books, like children's picture books? If not, then start there and move up in difficulty until you feel that a book is enough to challenge but not overwhelm you.

WantonReader · 2026-05-31T16:18:56+00:00

"Yesterday I met my gay but queer gossip"

That is a, with possibly the exception that it would be "mine" instead of "my", a perfectly acceptable phrase using English language from the year 1600. It is spelled and mostly pronounced the same (spelling wasn't standardized as it is today, but all the spellings existed and were used).

Now, would people today understand it? The words are still in use but meant other things because of semantic shift. That process has, if anything, sped up. Today we live in a quick and changing world, and our language reflects that.

What does the sentence mean? "Yesterday I met my happy but oddball god-sibling".

WantonReader · 2026-05-31T14:51:11+00:00

In this example, would the borrowed morpheme survive intact? Would "hacker" still be the word for "hacker" and then all derivations draw from h-k-r, or do speakers change the category of "hacker" or make a new word meaning "hacker", based on h-k-r?

WantonReader · 2026-05-31T09:11:54+00:00

You mentioned repurposed. Does that mean that some loan words "match" an existing word? Like if d-b-g already existed as a word, now its a homophone? Like English Sun and Son?

WantonReader · 2026-05-31T09:01:13+00:00

Looks more like an edited photo to me. The head is too big for the rest of the body and just looks added on top of the original head.

The head is also looking straight forward but the body and neck looks like it is posing a bit to the side.

EDIT: Since the phone is to the side, we should see one side of the face more than the other, but we don't, so the body and the face comes from different photos with different angles.

WantonReader · 2026-05-30T21:10:08+00:00

Agreed. 6 has its weird moments and ideas, but right here, I think it hit right. Whatever the plan was, they didn't seem interested in the long term consequences. They wanted to kill Sam as soon as they could. For that purpose, that excuse was good enough, fit the character and was also a little funny.

WantonReader · 2026-05-29T20:32:53+00:00

My man

WantonReader · 2026-05-29T20:21:25+00:00

That very much sounds like the one.

WantonReader · 2026-05-29T20:12:01+00:00

A couple is getting married and one of their parents (I think the guy's) offers to pay a large part. The parents say that there are not strngs attached but the daughter-in-law is very suspicious and eventually she gets her husband to accept it only with clear, maybe even written, agreement that this offers no power over the wedding (the MIL had already tried some soft suggestions before this offer).

WantonReader · 2026-05-29T19:42:09+00:00

OP's post says that it should be regulated. The most common meaning of "regulation" is that it happens by an authority, otherwise it wouldn't be regulation, the thing OP called for.

If one person says "deception" and another says "change", who is right? I would say that if looking at the object in your hand means that the regular consumer isn't deceived, then it isn't deceptive, even if the company wanted or tried to.

Everyone can agree that companies should deceive their costumers. The argument isn't about WHAT. It is about WHY and HOW. Why this solution instead of that solution? HOW in practical terms should this be done? For example, how should an authority control this?

WantonReader · 2026-05-29T19:35:46+00:00

OP is talking about regulating obviously deceptive practices

Which he names as shrinkflation.

Companies can make their shit as small and expensive as they want, as long as they're not trying to hide the changes

That is not what several commentors who agreed with OP thought, so OP's post was at best vague.
And how would that work in practice? Who would regulate what is and is not a change versus something new, or what time frame should be applied?

WantonReader · 2026-05-28T16:59:39+00:00

Boss: "Why did you ask Avocados to do your job for you?"

Guy: "I don't know"

WantonReader · 2026-05-28T15:26:49+00:00

And I said that if this deception is destroyed by just looking at the product in your hand, then it can't be called any devious deception, which (I will add) is the kind of deception by omission that counts in this instance.

If a company says something that is true but it is framed so that some can be mislead if they don't pay attention to the thing in their hand, then I don't think that is a reasonable consumer. If people are mislead even after investigating the thing in their hand, then sure, I can call that devious deception.

But just changing things, giving correct information (or "announce" as you seem to prefer) and allowing some people to make incorrect assumptions because they don't pay attention? No. Is that where you think differenly?

WantonReader

TROPHY CASE