Apart from them straights not being a Monolith, I feel there is a difference between not being represented and being actively excluded. You know, one is bad and one is worse.

You can and should leave a “Need a ____ tag” at the forum then. Don’t know why the article is so snarky about that, the poster of that seemed reasonable enough on the first 2 pages.

Say what you will, but implementing all manners of tags so users can express themselves, just to specifically leave out one is exclusion. “Move aside, heteros, this is our game!”.

You can argue that they deserve it, that the developer has no obligations, that they are represented everywhere else and that they should play those game instead, but it remains exclusion.

I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.

Barely anyone gets to have “convicted felon” in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. “Convicted of falsifying business records” is just so much more specific, and can later be added with “and election interference”.

In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority. If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying “Support due to being established fact”.