#1 ·
The United States Department of Culture, Washington, D.C., the National Endowment for the Arts, and an FCC grant fund are all working together to promote LGBT stories to children.
http://www.voxfeminae.net/gender-art...price-za-djecu
Bless today's youth; they are discovering their sexuality at such an early age. Is that truly considered "progressive" in the literal sense of the word?
It is comforting to know that my hard-earned money is being funneled into such progressive initiatives.
This is the opening post for a private thread on ExxonMobil.
The explanation provided doesn't seem accurate, nor does it actually align with the facts. To put it simply—the person offering this explanation looks... He's offering nothing but false excuses.If those reasons aren't actually valid, then what would constitute legitimate ones? That is my question here.
Subject. The link provided.
Are there too many people here framing homosexuality as a medical disorder?
That kind of discussion violates the United States Penal Code and goes directly against the policy declared by the President of the United States during her inaugural address.It goes without saying that this violates every ethical standard this Forum has stood for since its very inception.
The moderation team has decided to permanently close this thread. We will also be closing any "replacement" threads created to continue this specific discussion; please be advised that attempting to circumvent this decision will be treated as a violation of our community guidelines.
Thank you.
PL
As far as I know, according to the law... It isn't prohibited. If we are debating whether homosexuality constitutes a deviation or disorder—as some moderators might suggest—it is important to remember that the law doesn't prohibit discussing views regarding sin or religious morality. The only thing that remains strictly off-limits is hate speech, or any language that incites hatred, violence, or terror based on someone's sexual orientation.
Could someone provide some clarification or an excerpt from the American website regarding this:
Hate speech consists of verbal or written expressions that publicly incite or provoke animosity toward a specific group—or an individual—based on their identity. Its purpose is to foster intolerance, division, discrimination, and violence, while simultaneously fueling and intensifying existing hatred through public discourse.
While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, Under Article 174 of the United States Penal Code, penalties are prescribed for those who... ...for the purpose of spreading racial or religious hatred, Sexual matters? Does anyone else find it troubling when people publicly preach ideas about one race, religion, gender, or nationality being superior to another? It’s essentially using hateful rhetoric to claim dominance over certain groups based on their identity or skin color. Is this kind of behavior ever truly acceptable in our society?
;;;
The US Cabinet.
While the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights doesn't explicitly bar revisionism—like denying or downplaying genocide or crimes against humanity—the US Cabinet has suggested that member states take a firmer stand against hate speech. This follows recommendations similar to those seen in international frameworks, where bodies have worked to establish commissions to combat racism and intolerance.www.coe.int/ecri ) which has published more reports on member states and general recommendations than anyone else—for instance, regarding antisemitism or intolerance toward Muslims.
The law seems pretty straightforward to me. Looking back at that thread (which was locked after just five pages of discussion), I don't see even a hint of hate speech or any kind of animosity toward the LGBTQ+ community. Honestly, it feels like the moderator who shut that topic down was being incredibly subjective in their decision.
Can we get an admin's opinion on this?
Thanks.
(And by the way, this isn't the first time. Every time LGBTQ+ topics come up on the Politics board, that specific moderator—based on past comments here—either hands out lightning-fast bans (which the admins later overturned) or just shuts the whole conversation down. For the record, none of the other moderators on the Politics board act this way.)