the only 'hate' in play was the person didn't like the new logo and colour scheme. He used a poor choice of word in today's PC environment to express his dislike and for that was downvoted and then when he respectfully asked why he was downvoted he was accused of hate speech told to Die In A Fire (DIAF)... which was then repeated by the perpetrator in this post.
That comment is far more hateful speech then the original comment referring to the colour scheme as being "gay".
I do agree with your assessment of sneak and especially the role he plays. If he has talent in development the best place for him to be is likely well out of the public's eyes and ears.
You are right.
Though my last line was a broad statement.
Sneak's official post was not productive.
Completely makes his stance hypocritical really.
That is why I hope he can reanalyze and even put out an apology.
This might come back to haunt him in the future if he doesn't.
His conduct should be more professional and not driven by emotion.
I stand by everything I said. I still want bigots who insist on bigotry instead of education for themselves to die in a fire.
If you think that’s worse than flagging someone for using slurs, you’re vastly ignorant of history.
You know that gays actually refer to themselves as such, right? I'm also fairly certain that comment wasn't directed at a person, so who are you getting offended for?
What do people need education about having an opinion on the color and design of the new logo?
I never had issue with the flagging.
We are all free to exercise that right.
History does not hold strict rule on words either.
They evolve through time just like society does.
When analysed from a truth and definitive view.
It's not the word, but manner of usage that matters.
Which is what really determines the intent.
In the logo reference. It was hardly intended as hate.