Religion PDF - Blue Bird - Outages on the homosexuality thread

Look, I’m not officially filing a grievance against a specific user here, but honestly, where else am I supposed to put this? I already flagged the original thread, but I wanted to bring this specific situation over here because I have no idea what’s going to happen with that report over in the Religion section.

So, here’s the deal: a moderator, Brenda Cook4, is out there promoting a news article and—get this—actually highlighting specific passages from it regarding the social and religious aspects of homosexuality. In this piece, the author goes as far as calling homosexuality a disease and labeling it as deviant, abnormal behavior. They even go so far as to argue that what they deem "deviant," "sick," and "abnormal" shouldn't be allowed to become "normal" or "healthy."

And it isn't just a one-off thing, either. This moderator has been jumping into these discussions for a while now, dropping homophobic comments left and right. In this particular post, they suggest we should revert back to "what was previously established," which is basically a thinly veiled way of insinuating that homosexuality ought to be classified as a mental illness.

On several other threads, this moderator is either making these kinds of comments themselves or actively backing up others who do. Take this one, for instance, where they're being sarcastic and mocking homosexuality by supporting a previous comment:

which says:
"Yeah, sure, because that's how we 'evolved,' right?"

These are just a few examples of what's going on. Isn't it about time someone actually looked into this "moderator's" activity?

Carl Brooks18 said:I’m not actually appealing a ban here, but I honestly don't know where else to bring this up. I’ve already filed a report, but I wanted to flag this specific situation here too, since I have no idea what will come of that report over in the Religion section.

Basically, we have a moderator, Brenda Cook4, who is essentially pushing a news article by cherry-picking specific quotes. They're focusing heavily on the social and religious aspects of homosexuality, using an author's perspective that labels being gay as a disease, something deviant, or abnormal behavior. The writer is basically arguing that what they view as "deviant" or "sick" shouldn't be allowed to become "normal" or "healthy."

And this isn't just a one-off. This moderator has been jumping into these discussions for a while now with some pretty homophobic takes. In this particular post, they suggest we should revert to "what was previously established," which feels like a heavy insinuation that homosexuality ought to be classified as a mental illness.

On several other threads, this moderator either voices or backs up homophobic sentiments. Here, they're actually mocking homosexuality by backing up a previous comment:

which says:
"Yeah, because that's what we 'evolved' for, right?"

These are just a few examples. It might be time for someone to take a closer look at this "moderator's" activity.

'Homophobic'? Let's break that down:

1.

Here, they are mocking and making fun of homosexuality, backing up the previous comment:

which says:
"Yeah, because that's what we 'evolved' for, right?"

The previous comment was actually this one:

And that was in the Philosophy chat, referring to monogamy, which is what I was continuing to discuss.

2. What do you mean 'propagating' a news article? I was just quoting a link from a user in The New York Times—how is that 'propagating'? What kind of logic is that? Where am I living if I can't share something from a legitimate American newspaper? Apparently, if I try to spark a discussion about the start of an article, people will try to shut me down and call it 'propaganda.' It seems like they'd find it very hard to defend that journalist, too.

3. Reverting to 'what was established':

I already answered ego (and I've mentioned my thoughts on the DSM and whether it ever even included these things in multiple posts, both here and elsewhere):

Quote: The ego. said:I totally missed this one. If you had to circle back to any specific point we discussed earlier, what would be your go-to?

Look closely at those quotation marks. We’re dealing with a term that, quite frankly, lacks any actual scientific backing at this stage. It’s all speculation. What seems much more plausible to me isn't some deep-seated genetic blueprint, but rather a complex cocktail of hormonal shifts and environmental triggers. Only time will tell for sure, though.

Maybe it’s high time someone actually took a look at how this "moderator" is handling things.

Either they should focus on these kinds of ideas—you know, the whole "banning free speech" thing—because, let’s be honest, it’s clearly just about silencing anything that doesn't align with what they personally believe is right.

Look, this isn't about my personal definition of what's "correct," nor am I out here playing bodyguard for "freedom of speech." Just because science hasn't pinned down the exact origins of homosexuality doesn't give anyone a free pass to label it a sickness. Your "freedom of speech" ends the moment it starts infringing on someone else's right to exist without being harassed. No one has the right to call others "sick" as a way to bully them, especially when their identity isn't even a medical diagnosis.

It’s pretty obvious from what you've posted here that you've crossed the line multiple times. Even when you try to play it "polite," you're still contributing to this toxic atmosphere, which is why I'm handing this over to another moderator to review your activity.

(Edit: And don't even bother trying to sugarcoat that first part. When someone made that nasty comment about homosexuality—you know, the one about how we've "evolved" just to facilitate certain sexual acts—your response was basically, "Yeah, exactly." Everything you wrote after that is totally irrelevant. It's just one more example of how you use sarcasm to mock homosexuality or back up those kinds of insults.) This is nothing more than spreading verbal intolerance, no matter how much you try to dress it up. Like I said, I'm waiting for the other moderators to weigh in.

Carl Brooks18 said:It’s not about my personal definition of what’s "right," nor am I defending anyone's "right to an opinion." Just because we don't fully understand the origins of homosexuality doesn't mean it's acceptable for someone to label it a sickness. Your version of "free speech" hits a wall the moment it starts infringing on someone else's fundamental dignity. No one gets a pass to call others ill as a way to harass them, especially when their identity isn't even part of any medical diagnosis.

You’ve crossed the line quite a few times—it's pretty obvious from what you've posted here—even when you try to play it safe with your wording. You've definitely contributed to these heated debates, so I'm waiting to see if another moderator will weigh in on your conduct.

I already refuted your "evidence," yet you keep circling back to the same point. You seem to be operating under the logic of a Superior Court regarding the idea that calling homosexuality a "disorder" is just an expression of opinion (which, for the record, I have never personally said—I simply expressed confusion as to why it was ever on a medical list in the first place).

Note:
On July 18, 2011, the Superior Court of Los Angeles released its first-instance ruling in the trial involving religious teacher Jelen Mudrovčić, a case that gripped the American public, particularly among practicing believers.
The prosecution, representing the Lesbian group "Kontra," argued that the teacher had referred to homosexual individuals as sick during a religion class, "thereby intentionally encouraging discriminatory thinking and behavior among children, causing significant harm to the community and society at large."

After hearing witness testimony to determine whether Mudrovčić explicitly stated that homosexuality is a disease, the court "ruled that such statements do not constitute discrimination, but rather fall under the protection of freedom of expression."

This view was also supported by the admin, Strile, in the moderator section.

Trying to ban specific viewpoints and labeling them with various "phobias" just to force your own perspective as the standard... honestly, that should be an absolute non-starter on a forum in the 21st century.

And yes, I'm waiting for the admins to speak up.

What on earth does some random ruling from the Superior Court have to do with this? Some guy in a flashy car gets hammered, drives drunk, kills someone, and then walks away with just two years? Like, what’s the point of even bringing that up?!

On this forum's version of a "courtroom," users have been told over and over again that calling homosexuals "sick" isn't allowed—whether you're over in Politics, Social Science, Religion, or wherever else. So, wouldn't you think the moderators would actually lead by example here? Or am I wrong to assume that rules apply to everyone and aren't just for the regular folks while the mods get a free pass? 😕

On a different note, I'm looking at your entire track record, which is basically just one long string of insinuations about what's "normal" versus what's "deviant," like this:

...not to mention the follow-up comments and how you back them up, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm not interested in debating this with you. Maybe if the admins finally decided to weigh in and clarify what's actually permitted and what isn't, we could move on. For instance, is it actually okay to call homosexuals "sick" or not? Because right now, the line is incredibly blurry.

Carl Brooks18 said:What does some random ruling from the Superior Court have to do with this? It’s like some wealthy socialite driving drunk in a luxury car, killing someone, and then getting a mere two-year sentence. So what?!

On this forum's "courtroom," users have been told repeatedly that calling homosexuals "sick" isn't allowed—whether we're talking about Politics, Social Science, Religion, and so on. So, wouldn't you expect the moderators to lead by example? Or do the rules apply to everyone except the people running the show? :confused:

On the other hand, I'm looking at your entire history here, which is just loaded with insinuations about what is "normal" versus "deviant," such as this:

from those snide little comments to actually backing them up, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm not interested in debating this with you. Maybe if the admins would finally weigh in and clarify what's actually permitted and what isn't. For instance, is it okay to call homosexuals "sick," or is it not? Right now, the line is incredibly blurry.

It matters quite a bit, even if, obviously, a forum is private property and can decide its own rules. And regarding Religion, I already mentioned that this issue came up during a moderated debate there, and Strile agreed with that too.
Just a note: nobody is using the word 'sick people,' they are discussing 'disorders/illnesses,' if they hold that view.

. I'm not interested in debating this with you.

Of course you aren't, because honestly, I should probably just stay quiet so you can feel free to demand bans on anything that happens to rub you the wrong way. Sure thing.

Admins, please, weigh in.

Look, I’m going to say this one more time—for the third time now—because I refuse to sit here and be insulted, nor will I let someone twist my words to suit their own narrative regarding the very foundation of this forum. I didn't come here looking for some kind of "ban," and I certainly wasn't trying to tell you to shut up. I simply stated that I wasn't interested in debating you on that specific point; if I were, I would have reached out to you privately. The forum policy is clear: calling homosexuality a disease is strictly prohibited, given that it isn't one. When someone tries to convince others—or even just implies—that it’s a disorder, they are essentially labeling homosexual people as sick or unstable. To me, that feels like harassment, but honestly, my personal opinion isn't even the point here. The point is the forum policy itself, which many of the moderators have consistently emphasized and enforced.

So, based on your activity surrounding this topic and that string of problematic comments and posts you've made, I’m coming to you here for some clarification. Since I don't have access to the specific thread you keep bringing up, and I'm not privy to the various comments or decisions that were handed down there, I need to understand what's actually going on.

Laura Harris8;45593972 said:]Let me be clear—for the third time now—because I refuse to be insulted or have the very rules of this forum twisted against me. [/B]I didn't come here looking for "bans," nor did I tell anyone they had to shut up. I simply said I wasn't interested in debating that specific point with you; otherwise, I would have reached out privately. The policy here is straightforward: calling homosexuality a disease isn't allowed, because it isn't one. When someone tries to convince others or even comments that it’s a disorder, they are essentially labeling gay people as sick or unstable. To me, that feels like harassment, but my personal feelings aside, it's about the forum's policy, which several moderators have emphasized and warned us about before.

That's why, given your activity on that topic and a string of controversial posts, I came here seeking clarification. I don't have access to the thread you keep bringing up, so I'm not familiar with the specific comments or decisions made there.

From where I'm sitting, you're attacking me from the get-go. You're labeling my views as "outbursts"—to the point where you're actually stalking my posts in the Philosophy chat—and slapping the "homophobe" label on me. And your "evidence"? It's just those links you shared, which don't actually prove any of what you're claiming.

On the other hand, if the expectation is that no one can say anything because an opinion is considered "harassment" against some political agenda or whatever course is being taken, then I definitely have something to say. I see that as a blatant violation of free speech and the right to hold an opinion.

So, according to you, I'm a "homophobe" having "outbursts" because I don't support same-sex marriage, I didn't sign the petition, and I won't show up to vote in the referendum. Biologically speaking, I view homosexuality as a deviation from the norm. Whether it was placed on a list of mental illnesses and later moved to paraphilias, or removed from that list entirely, doesn't mean much to me—I never understood why it was on such a list in the first place (just like I don't understand the purpose of the entire list).
Calling me homophobic? Calling my views outbursts? Prohibiting that stance from being expressed? Unbelievable. I really thought we were past those days.

And of course, you showed up specifically to enforce bans, because you think certain opinions are "unfit" for this space.

What am I supposed to do with the believers in the Religion thread who signed the petition and are against same-sex marriage? Should I ban them too? Or should we provide a pre-approved list of "acceptable" words and arguments for them to use when explaining why they're opposed?

Honestly, I've been quite impressed with the Religion thread. We had over 2,700 posts without many warnings or major fights.

I’m throwing my hat in the ring to say the moderator for this thread is totally biased, straight-up breaking the subforum rules herself, and handing out penalties just because she doesn't like the debating tactics she uses herself.

Brenda Cook4 trolling:
putting words in people's mouths
pure trolling—dodging the actual point and turning everything into a ridiculous caricature
"it's obvious you don't get it, so it's my way or the highway"

Furthermore, she slapped me with a penalty on this post where I was drawing an analogy between race and sexual orientation (just for the sake of repetition), then had the nerve to slide into my PMs telling me I can't use that argument anymore, only to lie about it in the Appeals section by quoting some old post that had absolutely nothing to do with it. The post she penalized doesn't even break any of the subforum rules.

Brenda Cook4 says:
You keep spinning this same pseudo-dilemma from one post to the next (along with a whole bunch of other variations from the same tired playbook: ' The point is, for those of you too lazy to stand up when women are hitting or bullying others, you defend the idea that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry just to play it safe.'

My point stands: by using the threat of sanctions, the moderator is effectively shutting down arguments in a discussion where she's also acting as a participant, all while she ignores the rules herself—both the ones actually written in the Rules and the ones she uses to penalize everyone else.

rowdyotter25 said:I’m adding my two cents here: the moderator for this thread is being totally biased. She’s actually breaking our own subforum rules herself and handing out cards just because she doesn't like someone else's debating style—even though she uses those exact same tactics.

Brenda Cook4 trolling us:
putting words in people's mouths, repeating the same old thing
pure trolling—ignoring the actual point and turning it into a ridiculous caricature
"it's obvious you don't get it, so we're doing it my way"

I'm telling you, by threatening people with sanctions, the moderator is effectively shutting down valid arguments in a discussion where she’s also a participant. Plus, she’s breaking the rules without any penalty (both the explicit ones in the Rules and the unspoken ones where she hands out cards to others while ignoring her own behavior).

On top of that, I got hit with a card on a post where I was using an analogy regarding race and sexual orientation (strictly due to repetition). In a PM, she told me I'm no longer allowed to use that specific argument, but when she filed the appeal, she misrepresented the whole thing by quoting an older post that had nothing to do with it. The post that actually earned the card didn't even break any subforum rules

I already explained why you got the card. A card is meant for trolling, specifically for someone who keeps repeating the exact same thing over and over again. No matter who says it, your argument was always the same: "racism." However, once it was explained that racism is a fundamental human right under the UN Declaration, and once the legal precedent from the European Court was linked showing that the right to marriage isn't classified as a fundamental human right in that context—meaning that wouldn't be the argument anymore—you just kept circling back to the same claim. It's true, and it's true.

Btw, why did you link the exact same post twice in your links above (the first one) and write "once again"?

That card was a one-time thing to stop the trolling, considering you have over 400 posts (which is nearly triple everyone else's), so I really don't see how that could be seen as "preventing" anyone from making an argument.

Brenda Cook4 said:I already explained why you got the card, and honestly, getting a card is just an excuse to go on a loop, repeating the same tired nonsense over and over again. No matter who says it, your go-to defense is always just screaming 'racism.' But once I laid out how racism is a fundamental human right under the UN Declaration, and then dropped the legal precedent from the Supreme Court stating that marriage isn't actually categorized as a fundamental human right in this context, your little argument falls apart. You're just spinning your wheels saying 'it is what it is' without any actual substance.

Just because you personally think my analogy doesn't apply doesn't mean you have the authority as a moderator to yank my post based on your gut feeling. It’s the same old song—you keep insisting homosexuality is unnatural, but so what? Is that considered trolling now too?

Brenda Cook4 said:By the way, why the hell are you linking to the exact same post twice in those links up there and writing 'once more'?

My bad, just a copy-paste fail. I deleted it because I didn't save the second link and don't have it handy.

Brenda Cook4 said:That card was the only one, handed out specifically for the trolling found in your massive pile of over 400 posts—which, by the way, is nearly triple everyone else's. So I don't see how anyone could say we're 'preventing' actual debate.

You slapped me with a card over a racism analogy that I fully broke down in my response. My post wasn't some repetitive loop. Then, in a PM, you told me I'm not allowed to bring up that "false dilemma" anymore. You're basically cherry-picking one valid line of reasoning and using your moderator powers to gatekeep which arguments are allowed to exist in the conversation and which aren't.

Furthermore, on the Zalb thread, you pulled a quote from a completely different post—one that had nothing to do with the card—just to manufacture support from the other moderator. That moderator then took your bait, accepting your quote instead of the actual content from the flagged post. You essentially misrepresented the whole reason for the card.

Brenda Cook4 said:I just see that you’re being biased right from the title, labeling my views as "outbursts" (to the point where you're stalking my posts in the Philosophy chat, hey, Philosophy chat!) and slapping the "homophobe" label on me, yet your "evidence" consists of links that don't actually contain anything remotely related to what you're claiming.

Look, I didn't start this thread, nor did I come up with its title. I originally posted this under "Appeals against a card" because I honestly wasn't sure where else it belonged. Someone else turned it into a new topic and picked the title themselves.

And for the record, I am not "stalking" your posts. This forum has a search function—which is exactly what I used so I could provide links to the specific problematic posts here—and while looking through recent examples, I happened to run into that exact post from Philosophy. Since when did using a search bar become forbidden? Since when is that considered "stalking"?

When you made that snarky, mocking comment about homosexuality, you responded to it with approval and even more sarcasm. That isn't the kind of behavior a moderator should be endorsing, let alone setting an example of for everyone else.

If, on the other hand, the expectation is that no one is allowed to say anything at all because any dissenting opinion is considered 'harassment' of someone's political agenda or whatever course they're taking, then I certainly won't stay silent, as I find that to be a blatant violation of the right to express an opinion and freedom of speech.

Where on earth am I demanding that nobody can say anything? I'll ask again: where did I ever say that NOBODY isn't allowed to say ANYTHING?

I’m calling on the authorities reading this debate not to fall for the manipulation this moderator is attempting. I haven't said anything of the sort. In fact, I was being perfectly clear:

1. I wasn't talking about politics or anyone's political agenda.
2. Homosexuality is not a disease.
3. Calling homosexual people "sick" is verbal harassment of those individuals.
4. Forum policy—as other moderators have emphasized and stated—is that it is not permitted to refer to homosexuality as a disease or disorder; therefore, such behavior is expected from moderators too, whether expressed directly or indirectly.
5. The moderator Brenda Cook4 has had several outbursts like this on the topic, and if you look closely at her posts on that subject, it's quite obvious.

I couldn't care less about your personal opinions, nor your "deviations from the rules" or whatever else you're implying by that. My stance is that no one has the right to harass others by labeling their "condition" as a sickness when there is no medical diagnosis for it—and that includes all the indirect insinuations this moderator has been dropping on that thread for a while now. Nor should anyone be mockingly ridiculing gay people while the moderators actually support it. Not to mention the way this moderator talks to other users, accusing them of "outing" themselves:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=2598

Here she goes again, referring to certain "ailments" and claiming there were plenty of them:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=2697

Anyway, there’s definitely plenty to unpack when it comes to how this moderator actually "handles" things.

rowdyotter25 said:Whether or not an analogy works is entirely your own opinion, and as a moderator, you aren't entitled to strip away a thesis just because you disagree with its logic. You can't just delete arguments.

You handed out a card based on my analogy regarding racism—an analogy I fully explained in my previous post. I wasn't literally repeating myself. Then, in a PM, you told me I'm no longer allowed to present that "false dilemma." It feels like you’re cherry-picking one valid line of reasoning and using your moderator powers to gatekeep which arguments are permitted in the debate and which ones aren't.

On top of that, regarding the appeal, you posted a quote from a completely different thread—one that didn't even trigger the card—just to get another moderator to back you up. They took your quote as proof, not the actual content of the flagged post. You essentially misrepresented why the card was issued in the first place.

Oh, what a spin! I didn't "remove" your thesis (it's still sitting there dozens of posts down), I simply issued a card for repeatedly throwing that specific argument at anyone who speaks.

In our private messages, I pointed out that this has been repeated a million times, and that is the whole point. Personally, I view it as a false dilemma, and I explained my reasoning. Similarly, for the appeal, I included some of your other points in parentheses—like your claim that being against same-sex marriage is synonymous with supporting pedophilia in Brezovica or the mistreatment of women. Since I consider that a pseudo-dilemma, I included it to explain exactly why the card was given. I didn't misrepresent anything.

Look, I have no interest in playing judge or handing out punishments; I don't care about making value judgments, and neither is that part of the rules. If your primary argument is that opposing same-sex marriage is "racism"—combined with that classic, logically flawed *reductio ad absurdum*—we can certainly have a debate about that on the main thread. But let me be clear: that is not why the card was issued.

Carl Brooks18 said:. Not to mention the way this moderator talks to other users, basically accusing them of "overstepping":

Here, she’s circling back to those same old "issues," claiming there’s been plenty of them:

Bottom line is, there’s plenty of material to study when it comes to this moderator's "management style."

Oh, please! Heaven forbid I accidentally get a little feisty—I mean, what if Beljki or ego felt even slightly offended? Good grief.🙄

Look, I’ve said my piece. The admins will have their say (and honestly, anyone else who wants to speak up will too). If the administration actually believes these accusations against me—and if they start entertaining requests like yours that try to strip away free speech by labeling everything as an "outburst" or a "phobia" just because it doesn't align with your personal views—then I won't stay for a second longer. If that's how things work, I'm more than happy to step down from moderating the Religion section.

Brenda Cook4 said:Oh, give me a break. I didn't 'remove' your point—it's still sitting there dozens of posts back—I just handed out a card to anyone repeatedly trying to throw that same tired argument at people.

Brenda, you're grasping at straws.

1. This isn't a duplicate post. The argument keeps getting recycled, but every single time it's being spat out as a response to some other user's comment.
2. You actually used a private message to shut me down for pointing out what I see as a total false dilemma.
3. Over on the Zalb thread, you tried to justify the ban by quoting something that wasn't even in the flagged post, and then Ego used that nonsense to double down on the card.

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, I'm not stepping in to punish anyone, nor am I trying to play judge over anyone's values or moral compass.

Right here, in a thread where we're all airing grievances about how you moderate, you decide to pivot into a whole debate about homosexuality instead of just explaining how your moderation aligns with the Rules..

rowdyotter25 said:Brenda, you're being unfair.

1. This isn't a duplicate post. I've used the same argument before, sure, but every single time I rewrote it specifically to respond to another user's point.
2. You actually blocked me via PM from even discussing what you personally view as a false dilemma.
3. Regarding the Appeal thread, you supported the penalty by quoting something that wasn't even in the flagged post—and based on that, Ego justified the ban.

In this thread, where we are all questioning your moderation, you keep pivoting the conversation toward homosexuality instead of just explaining how your decisions align with the Rules.

Why make things up? I didn't "block" you; I simply answered your question about why the post was sanctioned, which was due to repeating the same point a million times (and yes, I consider that a false dilemma and a logical fallacy).

But no, it seems like any time I make an argument, you'll just claim that someone opposing same-sex marriage is a racist. I'm looking at the appeals, and I've cited some of them.

No, like I said, I just set that aside to illustrate how you handle arguments in other posts—it's quite obvious in the card appeal threads. And look, if Ego made a mistake, he can fix it; even moderators can get a call wrong sometimes. Besides, I already explained my reasoning to Ego regarding why the card was issued.

Alright, fine—you're complaining about the moderation. You received one single card out of 418 posts. Honestly, I think that might be the only card I've handed out in this entire thread. So, where is the issue with the moderation? Is it "repressive"? How?

Brenda Cook4 said:Yeah, seriously, as if I wouldn't just crack a joke once in a while—God forbid maybe Beljki or Ego took offense, oh boy.🙄

Look, I’ve said my piece, and the admins will say theirs (and honestly, anyone else who wants to chime in too). If the administration actually starts entertaining these kinds of demands—demands that would basically strip away free speech by labeling anything they dislike as an "outburst" or a "phobia," even when none of those labels are true and are just different from your personal opinion—then I have absolutely no interest in serving as the Religion moderator for one more second. I'll gladly step down.

This isn't about free speech at all. This is just yet another example of how you talk to people—mostly through manipulation. You're shifting the focus of the debate onto something else entirely and accusing me of trying to censor you, playing the victim with those cheap, populist clichés. And the only actual response to the controversial posts was "I was just joking." Honestly, give me a break.

But, like I said, nobody's freedom of speech is being questioned here. You are perfectly free to write whatever you want, and I am perfectly free to question your specific rhetoric, especially from my position as a moderator.
I pointed out examples regarding the "ailments" you keep bringing up, the snide and mocking way you comment on specific topics, and how you back posts of that exact nature. Since the other moderators have already established that this kind of behavior isn't allowed for regular users, I decided to bring it up here. Like you said, let the people in charge look into whether there's any basis for a reaction. At the end of the day, I just want to know what is and isn't permitted on this forum. I wasn't questioning whether your moderator privileges should be revoked; that's for the people who actually make those decisions to handle.

Carl Brooks18 said:This isn't about freedom of speech at all and this is just another classic move where you shift the goalposts to something else entirely while accusing me of trying to defend free speech. You’re playing the victim with those cheap, populist clichés. And honestly, the only actual response to the controversial posts was "I was just joking." Not exactly a brilliant defense.

Look, like I said, nobody’s right to free speech is being questioned here. You’re perfectly free to write whatever you want, and I am perfectly free to call out what you're saying—especially from my position as a moderator.
I brought up the examples regarding the "ailments" you mentioned, the way you use sarcasm and mockery when discussing specific topics, and how you back those kinds of posts. Since other moderators have already flagged that kind of behavior as unacceptable for regular users, I decided to raise the question here. As you put it, let the higher-ups look into whether there's any basis for a reaction. Ultimately, I just want to know what's allowed on this forum and what isn't. I haven't even touched the idea of stripping you of your moderator privileges; that's for the people who actually make those calls to handle.

That is literally the only thing we are talking about. When you start listing things I supposedly shouldn't say (and linking posts to prove it) and labeling them as "outbursts" or "homophobia"—all because I called you out for linking a post, quoting a snippet from an article in the New York Times, or commenting on a PDF about Philosophy—then we aren't talking about anything else. We are talking about the idea of banning opinions that you personally find "unsuitable" for me to hold as a forum member.

Now, let's be clear: moderation is one thing if you have a grievance, especially since we're working from different sets of rules here, but my writing as a regular user is another. So, what's the deal with the moderation? Your complaint is directed at me as a user for my supposed "outbursts."

[/No, like I said, nobody’s right to free speech is being questioned here. You’re perfectly free to write whatever you want, and I am perfectly free to call out what you're saying—especially from my position as a moderator.QUOTE]

You are free to challenge my speech within a thread, to argue and counter-argue, and you're free to report my posts as inappropriate. But you are *not* free to turn this into a formal complaint or spin it into a dedicated thread (and you aren't responsible for the existence of the thread itself).

So, here is the situation: you’ve singled me out for my opinions, not for my moderation (you know, things like issuing cards, deleting posts, or banning users), because I am writing here as a forum member. Yet, you’re taking my personal writing, calling it questionable, putting it through the formal complaint process, and now someone has opened a special thread just to debate me and my posts. Let's think about this for a second.

The thread regarding that one issued card usually belongs in the appeals section, where a user might get involved to discuss moderation. Everything else in this thread is about me as a user—my posts and my views—which is what is being "investigated" here. I didn't realize we could host a whole separate discussion about a user and their opinions on the PZK board; I was under the impression that such things were handled by using the report button.

Brenda Cook4 said:The whole point here is exactly that—because the moment you start listing things I supposedly shouldn't say (and linking back to my posts to prove it), calling them "outbursts" or "homophobia," we stop talking about the actual topic. If your first instinct when I link a source or comment on a Philosophy PDF chat is to call me out just because I used an excerpt from a news outlet like the LA Times, then we aren't discussing facts anymore. We're discussing your attempt to ban any opinion that doesn't fit your specific vision of what a forum member should be.

Look, there’s a massive difference between moderation—which is one thing if you have a legitimate grievance—and how I express myself as a regular user here. So, let's get back to the real issue: What is actually going on with the moderation? Your little complaint isn't about the topic at hand; it's targeting me personally for my supposed "behavior."

1. I never once used the word "outbursts," and I certainly haven't tried to censor anyone's freedom of speech. I am asking you to please stop accusing me of things I did not do and quit putting words in my mouth.

2. Actually, I have a question of my own: If a regular user isn't allowed to call homosexuality a sickness or a disorder, does that mean a moderator isn't allowed to either?

3. And just to be clear, that question isn't directed at you—it's for the site administration. So, honestly, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation with you.

Brenda Cook4 said:because I'm writing on this thread as a forum member

What kind of "forum member" are you being here? What are we even talking about? Are you somehow the moderator for Religion? Did you step in as a moderator on the homosexuality discussion thread—from a social or religious standpoint—by handing out warnings or shutting people down?

What is actually going on here? What kind of narrative are you trying to spin?

Didn't the other moderators (Tyler Cruz32, Nicole James) explicitly state on that thread that homosexuality shouldn't be labeled a disorder?

Take a look at this post from moderator Tyler Cruz32:

Despite Tyler Cruz32's warning, Brenda Cook4 keeps pushing this idea of it being an illness. She does it through her own posts and by, as she puts it, "encouraging debate," all while dropping news articles that label homosexuality as a disease along with a whole bunch of other insinuations: