#21 ·
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Since you brought up that specific field, let me be clear: we don't hold that position just because we're looking for a win. It’s actually based on some pretty bad experiences with these kinds of arguments. To be blunt, we haven't had a situation in our political discussions where someone tried to use psychiatric diagnoses of homosexuality as a way to label people as "normal." We simply have no interest in debates where one side gets branded as pathological. That path honestly leads nowhere except to flame wars, trolling, and straight-up insults. The mod team has, unfortunately, seen far too much of that to fall for it.
I've left it there for you. And like I mentioned before, maybe that kind of talk would fly on a different subforum, but here in Politics, it doesn't.
Go ahead and ask the owner of this PUBLIC forum.
If you posted about physical nearsightedness in Politics, it would get wiped too, since we aren't a medical forum.
Thanks for the well wishes.
In that case, my colleague can just move over there without any trouble.
The simple truth is, you aren't really doing your job properly.
Because at the exact same time you claim:
"We simply have no interest in debates where one side gets branded as pathological."
you're letting any random user call anyone they want a homophobe.
And in medicine, a phobia is classified as a psychological disorder in the DSM-5.
So, it's completely wrong to say you don't allow users to label certain conditions, thoughts, or inclinations as pathological.
What's true is that you shut down moderates when homosexuals call it a disorder, yet you promote the same behavior from anarcho-liberals, because you never actually step in when someone gets labeled a homophobe.
😳