this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
99 points (85.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41681 readers
1286 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I really don't like the design of the progress pride flag, and I couldn't really put my finger on it until I saw this: https://nava.org/good-flag-bad-flag

For reference, here is the flag I'm referencing as "bad flag":

And here is the original:

So, the original has too many colors, but it's the colors of the rainbow. In order. It's recognizable from really far away, and it's dead simple to draw.

With the Intersex flag, that's 14 colors. There are three shades of "purple". The circle won't be visible from far away. The chevrons are too thin to be very recognizable from far away.

It's not like there aren't good pride flags. Like there are AMAZING ones:

Edit:

In case you don't know what these are: https://flagsforgood.com/collections/pride-flags

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 52 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It was poorly designed ever since they added the chevrons. The six colour pride flag was already pushing it with having six colours, but it pulled it off well and made it work. But anything else just screws it up.

Personally, I think adding intersex, transgender, black people(???) makes it seem as if they WEREN'T included in the original. I was always under the impression that the πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ flag included the whole LGBTQ+ groupings

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Same here, I don't understand the need to include ethnicity in a gender and sexuality flag. The flag was fine and already represented diversity. The fuck?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Its purpose isn't to be aesthetically pleasing. Trans people and POC are constantly discriminated against by other queers, and intersex people rarely are even acknowledged to exist at all, let alone treated as anything else than disgusting or sex object.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 1 points 1 day ago

This is my take too. I don't care how appealing the flag looks, but it needs to call out discrimination.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Yermaw@lemm.ee 74 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

Thats way too busy. Should definitely just keep the rainbow flag. Not every little niche needs specific representation, just have the rainbow as a catchall for any kind of deviation from heterosex

Edit to add : if they want to use them to identify and specify within rallies or amongst themselves somehow then whatever, go for it, as long as we can accept the layman isnt gonna have a clue and cant really be expected to.

[–] Railison@aussie.zone 79 points 1 day ago (10 children)

I thought the rainbow was supposed to mean it encompassed everyone.

The colours on the flag apparently weren’t sufficiently inclusive so perhaps this should be the next flag:

[–] Draegur@lemmy.zip 42 points 1 day ago (3 children)

this fails to capture the grades of saturation.

Here is every color in the RGB (#000000-#FFFFFF) color space arranged sequentially on a Hilbert curve (but scaled down to 512x512)

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why are there jpg compression artifacts in your png?

[–] Draegur@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

Probably because it's been downscaled from its full resolution.

Also rotated for some reason from the original? Or perhaps just rendered from the same mathematical sequence with some parameters swapped. Here's an uncompressed one:

https://allrgb.com/hilbert

[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This gets my vote

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Draegur@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

there are a lot of pieces that use one pixel per color too! you might really dig what people can do with it: it's honestly astonishing the kinds of arrangements they can make just by mixing the colors.

https://allrgb.com/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 day ago

But that doesn't include infrared or ultraviolet 🀣

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I would absolutely and unironically fly this flag, although to be even more inclusive it also needs an alpha layer. Perhaps it should be a cube? Actually even that might not be inclusive enough, we need more dimensions. BRB I need to figure out how to attach a tesseract to my flagpole, I guess I'll need some kind of gordian knot?

[–] nomecks@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 day ago

You need a hyperpole

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

But if you include alphas , you need to be inclusive of betas and sigmas, and other Greek letters still undefined

[–] DokPsy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I was thinking more adding from outside the visible spectrum. So a flag with the entire electromagnetic spectrum from ~10^-20 m to ~10^17 m

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago

Black and white are pretty overrepresented there though. Turning this into a sphere might help?

[–] Zier@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

I call Lime Green as my personal inclusion color!!!!

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 1 day ago

I literally lol'd!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wasn't the entire idea of the rainbow flag to just say "this includes everyone", to be inclusive?

Then people started "well red is this, yellow is that, green is that ...." Making the entire thing as exclusive as can be, now requiring a color and or symbol for each and every tiny different identity they were trying to be

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 8 points 1 day ago

Imo, the rainbow flag is perfectly inclusive. By focusing on one minority, you make it less diverse and less inclusive.

Rainbow flag is best

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They all sprung up in that period where flags were trendy. Every little camp had to have one to feel like a singled-out tribeβ€”and, no, this isn't just kink flags. This meant many would be flag designers overnight.

The result is there's some really fugly designs out there in the wild now and the idiots can't go back. But most people are over flag phase now, so you're unlikely to ever see this and most others out in the wild.

Nothing fails more at its job than a pride flag that people have no idea what is. It's almost irony.

And is this one ugly? Oh, yes. Enough to turn a person straight.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The solution is inheritance. If you want a more specific flag, inherit from the rainbow, but add an insignia. Now you have a unifying flag that is more meaningful. Also you can skip the complexity of trying to make everyone stand out because the rainbow is all inclusive.

For example, I also like the pink triangle pirate flag. If you want a gay flag, take the rainbow and add that pirate insignia. Think like the US flag which is also a bunch of stripes but with some star insignia. Now you have one clear insignia on a field of inclusiveness

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

You're right. Could literally design anything and people that know nothing about any of it could figure it out quickly. But instead, a salad of sex preferences, gender, race, kink, specific US cities, all appearing to be under the Intersex insignia.

It's always seemed so bad to me that it's more likely to be done by an anti-woke troll or someone like Michael Scott discovering Pride Month.

It's just offensive. Obviously to the eyes, but also to any group being shoved together within its borders.

[–] november@lemmy.vg 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

deviation from heterosex

Totally normal words to say. BTW trans and intersex people can still be straight.

[–] Yermaw@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Better get it on the flag then ig

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

Here's the thing though, I know this is an ally flag, but it's like they never considered symbols:

Ignore the really bad black and white background for a second.

Imagine the left side of the shape is an homage to the original pride flag and the right side is WHATEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IN IT. Uniform clean design with representation. Easy to draw for the layman (fill both sides in with rainbow if you want), and easy to add specific representation

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are judging work by somebody who doesn't feel compelled to follow guidelines made by other people with those very same guidelines. Those other people looked much more closely at flags for geographical entities, not movements, to come up with their guidelines. No one is required to follow them or retroactively abide by them. They are a great style guide but not the law.

Every flag serves a purpose. This flag's purpose is to show representation by color and design for everyone in the community. It's was the point to be busy.

Why don't they just stick with the rainbow flag? Because the idea of the rainbow encompassing everyone was made at a time when gay and lesbians came out with pride but many of the letters that abbreviate that community today were still marginalized more harshly, maybe even within homosexual circles. They weren't all suddenly anthropists and free from discriminatory points of view. Development of ideas and communities takes time. And that's why an artist took ideas from many different flags that were created over time and combined them into one. It is eye catchy and instantly recognizable, even at a medium distance still.

I don't find the result aesthetically pleasing either. But I recognize a) that wasn't the point of it and b) I'm not a member of the LGBTQ+ community. If from within that community a movement rises to change the flag into something else, by all means. Other than that my design opinions - and I suspect many other ones in this thread - are largely academic and frankly irrelevant.

Good flag bad flag is not the gospel. Take it as a starting point for new designs but don't scrutinize all existing flags by it.

You really nailed how a lot of trans and poc queer people feel about the Rainbow flag; it mostly represents cis white well off gay men and lesbian women, and implies everybody else.

[–] november@lemmy.vg 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Good Flag Bad Flag" is a bunch of people's opinions. It's not any kind of official flag rule book, because there is no such thing.

I think the progress pride flag is fine.

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Only to a degree. Good flags are simple, distinct, memorable, easy to recognise from a distance, easy to recreate.
There are plenty of objectively bad flags out there that fail in their design, yet people still like them, and that is fine.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Americans love to subdivide themselves, and that's especially true for activists. The flag reflects that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Haha I came here to link this. One of my favorite videos.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Oh god please no

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I doubt it'll ever be redesigned.

The reason it's badly designed as is, is that people wanted specific inclusion into the primary symbol. There's really no way to change a rainbow; it's the standard spectrum of visible light being used as a symbol of everyone in their diversity being part of a group.

To be any more inclusive, you have to put things on top of the already inclusive rainbow. A corner piece or an inset is the only way to do that that isn't horrible looking no matter what it is.

The chevrons from the side are at least visually balanced, though not well chosen colorwise. Then again, the representative colors weren't chosen with being added to a flag in the first place.

Once you start changing an established symbol rather than just coming up with a new one, design goes out the window. It's no longer cohesive because it can't be. It's like the difference between someone planning a tattoo that covers their arm, and someone getting a few dozen tattoos on their arm. Shoving things together without a plan ahead of time is airways going to be less visually pleasing.

But, visual pleasance isn't what the flag is for, so maybe it's more effective than something planned from the beginning. I dunno, but the fact that it isn't "just" a rainbow does mean you can't mistake it for someone liking rainbows in general, so that could be a benefit of that change.

I don't agree that the original rainbow flag has too many colors though. If you don't have the standard color spectrum there, it isn't a rainbow to most people's minds, so it would be worse design. The standard ROYGBV is standard for a pigment rainbow for a good reason.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

I'm not advocating for removing the rainbow. You could literally "cut" a big rectangle in the middle and just have a different color background with extra things, paying homage to the original rainbow flag and having center balance. The only good thing I have to say about the chevrons are that it establishes vertical and horizontal orientation.

I'll have to mull over your statement about being more effective that something planned from the beginning.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί