Lafari

If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Unhinged conspiracy theorist Francis E. Dec, who essentially originated the concept of gangstalking and targeted individuals and gained notoriety for ranting about his theories of the "Gangster Computer God", passed away 15 days after his 70th birthday. But how did he die?

"Age 70 - According to Dec, the critical age at which the Computer God has determined that all people should either be "dead or useless".  Presumably this policy would only apply to the plebian masses and not to the Playboy scum-on-top. Should you be "lucky" enough to live to age 70 and be rendered useless, you can also expect to have many diseases, a raspy, aged voice and a wrinkled ugly gargoylic clown-booze face with bulldog hanging cheeks and jowls."

Did he kill himself after he turned 70 or was it just a coincidence?

Examples:

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (the book)

And before you say "alternate title", since these supposed alternate titles are included in the full version of the main title (even if it's usually not listed in full), how does this differ from "true" alternate titles that replace the entire main title?

Example:

Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey vs Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn

Into the Deep vs Yakamoz S-245

And then there's the standard sub-titles, for example:

Captain America: The First Avenger

(Sorry for my lazy title choices but I couldn't think of any others)

It seems like we have 3 things here: an "or" title in the name (alternate title which is included in the full version of the main title), a completely different alternate title that replaces the main one, and a subtitle following a colon after the main title. Are there different names to distinguish these different types of titles??

Also can we talk about how sub-title is used to mean closed captions as well as "sub-name" (sub-title used in this context)? It makes it impossible to search about because most people understand subtitle to mean closed captions, I think.

Hearing the movie is getting bad reviews. But Snyder says the director's cut will be a completely different movie with a different vision. I admit Zack Snyder's Justice League (director's cut) was much better than the theatrical version and quite different (though I had mostly forgotten the original by then). Not sure if I should just watch this movie now or wait for the director's cut for a better experience. Impression Blend on YouTube said it was ok.

An example is that I generally despise Jordan Peterson and most of what he says, but I often quote one thing that Jordan Peterson said (in the linked video) because I think it's a good summary of why toxic positivity doesn't work.

People (who hate JP) freak out when I quote him and say "Why tf are you quoting Jordan Peterson? Are you a insert thing that Jordan Peterson is?" And I'm like "No, I generally disagree with him on most points, aside from this one thing." But they don't believe or accept it and assume that I must be a #1 Jordan Peterson fan or something.

I think it can be considered a partial agreement, majority disagreement. Or a partial agreement with a person you generally disagree with. But I'd be open to other terms of how to describe this in a way people can understand.

Also, to avoid the controversy of referencing Jordan Peterson, if anyone has a better summary of the same concept explained by a different person in a way as well as he does, that would be appreciated too.

Please prove me wrong and suggest me some modern ones that stand up to the older ones.

Also, why are there no 3rd person shooter/3D platformer hybrids aside from Ratchet & Clank / Jak series? This seems like an untapped genre hybridisation that works well together. Like literally why is no one making games like this. I would love some examples of 3rd person shooter platformers to prove me wrong again.

Edit: It's not a nostalgia thing. The quality of the PS2 platformers was actually better. Even ones I discovered recently that exist on PS2 or that I hadn't played before. If I compare them side by side with modern 3D platformers, they look like s*** compared to the PS2 ones. And case in point, there are literally no open world 3rd person shooter-3D platformers with detailed worlds/graphics outside of PS2 (that I know of) and those are the kinds of 3D platformers I enjoy most... give me an example to prove me wrong. Ok technically I know of a few examples which meet some but not all of this criteria (only because I've looked far and wide for them) but they're very basic and nowhere near as intricate as these games.

Please don't say neither (that's not an option)