The Edge is getting censored on Politics again

Honestly, trying to have a sane, logical debate when Ryan Vaughn7 is calling the shots on the politics here is basically impossible... 🙄

Back during that discussion about "sexuality information and education," I shared some links regarding:

- Margaret Sanger—the founder of Planned Parenthood—and her specific viewpoints...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7IUzjN3pY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3U3NcCD1lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZdwpjArFjg

- The organization itself, Planned Parenthood, and how much they get involved in sexuality information and education right here in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsfIVCotQn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9aNWNznxHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7xEc7CFbYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWMsalghCKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RWVLQx98Yk

- That 1969 Planned Parenthood memorandum and their whole agenda for population reduction...

http://www.toomanyaborted.com/wp-con...Jaffe-Memo.pdf

Which, among other things, explicitly states:

Restructure family:

a) Postpone or avoid marriage
b) Alter image of ideal family size

Social welfare policies
Encourage increased homosexuality
Educate for family limitation
Fertility control agents in water supply
Social welfare policies

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

So, you have this one organization performing abortions, getting state support to handle sexuality information and education, pushing for population reduction, and advocating for more homosexuality...

It’s all there, documented in black and white...

But Ryan Vaughn7 just won't let me post any of this in the "sexuality information and education" thread... 🙄

I'm really hoping the forum mods can step in and deal with Ryan Vaughn7 and his tendency to censor everything... ☕

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Trying to have a decent, logical debate about politics under Ryan Vaughn7's thumb—it’s just impossible. 🙄

I dropped some links in the debate over "sexuality education"—specifically regarding:

Margaret Sanger—the founder behind Planned Parenthood—and her whole philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7IUzjN3pY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3U3NcCD1lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZdwpjArFjg

Regarding "Planned Parenthood" and their involvement in sex education here in America—it’s a mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsfIVCotQn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9aNWNznxHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7xEc7CFbYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWMsalghCKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RWVLQx98Yk

Regarding that 1969 "Planned Parenthood" memorandum—and those whole population reduction schemes—it’s all still right there.

[Link to Jaffe Memo PDF]

Where exactly does that say, among other things:

---

Planned Parenthood—an organization that’s basically become the epicenter of every heated debate over reproductive rights and social policy in America today. It’s more than just a healthcare provider; it's a massive political lightning rod.

So, let me get this straight—it’s the exact same organization performing abortions, pushing sex education through state funding, advocating for population reduction, and campaigning to encourage increased homosexuality... all at once.

It’s all there—laid out in black and white. Proven.

But Ryan Vaughn7 won't let this be posted in the "sexuality information and education" thread... 🙄

I’m calling on the forum mods to please deal with Ryan Vaughn7 and his obsession with censorship... ☕

Look, I think you need to be reined in regarding this constant spamming—it’s getting old. Everyone has already seen those links of yours, yet you just keep posting them over and over again. Seriously—why not post a movie from some small town in Oregon instead? You won't be around much longer.

neonwalker95 said:I honestly think you need to be reined in because of all this constant spamming and repeating. Everyone's already seen those links of yours, yet you just keep posting them over and over again. Why don't you just drop a movie recommendation from Scandinavia instead? It won't take long enough

And here we go again with the old spam accusations... totally untrue, obviously...

It’s just that they can't handle actual arguments—lying to turn me into some kind of troll or spammer isn't exactly new territory for them either...

Anyone who actually wants to check can compare my links to the ones already in the thread, and they'll see I've only shared them once and only once... ☕

---

That’s just how it works when dealing with the "old school" crowd—but when the "progressive" types like Ryan Vaughn7 start trolling and spamming, well, then anything goes, I guess...

As for Ryan Vaughn7, I've reported one of his trolling posts a few times now and absolutely nobody has reacted... even though he's a moderator, for this specific post, he really deserves a warning card:

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:but Ryan Vaughn7 won't let us post that in the "sex education" thread... 🙄

I'm not allowing it. This thread is specifically about sex education in American schools, and Ms. Sanger isn't even listed in the Module 4 curriculum reading list. It's 4. OFF topic, which will be flagged as 4. OFF topic, and we'll just end up repeating ourselves again.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I’m not having it. We're talking about sex education in American schools, and Ms. Sanger isn't even listed in the Module 4 curriculum bibliography. This is totally 4. OFF topic—just pure cardboard—and if it keeps happening, it’s just going to loop back on itself again...

Do you want a link?

The European Union—along with all these various organizations working with them—has been leaning on America for years regarding sex education... the internet is honestly flooded with sites like that, you really just have to type in "sex education USA"...

Who can say they maintain special ties with the European Union, the Commission, and the Parliament? Well, "Planned Parenthood," obviously...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ood_Federation

The IPPF or "Planned Parenthood" and the EU have been working closely together for years, basically sharing the same agenda when it comes to sexual issues... the EU provides massive financial backing to the IPPF...

http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/...ll_version.pdf

The main hand squeezing America on the sex education front is the EU, and one of the fingers is the IPPF or "Planned Parenthood"...

And there you have it—the connection between America and the rest of the world... ☕

---

That's why Ryan Vaughn7's reasons for deleting posts and handing out warnings were pretty unfounded... which is why I'm asking for the posts to be restored and the warnings to be rescinded...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_topic

On the global stage and across the US, you see these specific viewpoints on sexuality being pushed by all sorts of organizations that seem to have the exact same playbook when it comes to sex education... one of the big ones, and definitely one of the most influential, is Planned Parenthood—they work so closely with the European Union on joint projects, and the European Union actually funds them... for years now, the European Union has been putting pressure on America to align its sex education with their specific views, and those views held by these organizations...

I mean, what does Linux have to do with an earthquake, my dear and noble Ryan Vaughn7? 🙂

To put it vividly—it’s like Mate is pouring gasoline onto Jurino's car while it's already engulfed in flames... and then Ryan Vaughn7 wants me to just stand there and marvel at the burning car and wonder why it's burning so long and so intensely, without even letting me mention the gas can or the matches... 🙏 😁

Ryan Vaughn7 tries to hide his own bias by masking it as poor moderation, and honestly, one of the hallmarks of bad moderation is setting boundaries that are way too restrictive during a discussion...

So, I'm just asking for my posts to be restored and for the bans to be lifted... ☕

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Ryan Vaughn7 hides his bias behind claims of poor moderation, and one hallmark of bad moderation is setting boundaries that are just too narrow for a real discussion...

That’s why I’m asking for my posts back and for those warnings to be cleared... ☕

Look, this "narrow" topic has already seen 2,100 posts in just 15 days. That’s nearly 400 posts in the last 24 hours alone. Seriously, go grab another coffee on me. You’re going to need a big one.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:This thread is absolutely exploding—we’ve hit 2,100 posts in just 15 days. That’s basically 400 posts in the last 24 hours alone... seriously, go grab another coffee on me. Make it a large one.

Just a few little tips from a former moderator:
- don't be afraid to ask for some backup over in the "policy" moderator corner
- when you feel like you're being completely drowned by a tidal wave of new posts, just post a quick note saying "thread temporarily closed for maintenance," lock it down, take a deep breath, exhale, relax, and just focus on editing... once everything is tidied up, just open it back up again...

And I didn't see anyone getting flagged for calling a cardinal a chapter head, or labeling believers as Taliban supporters, or even just being posted behind a moderator warning...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:a little advice from an ex-mod:
- ask for help over in the "policy" moderator corner
- when you feel like the flood of posts is starting to drown you, just write a thread saying "topic temporarily closed for maintenance," lock it, take a breath, exhale, relax, and dive into some editing... once you're done, just reopen it...

It’s always such a massive joy to get expert advice from someone with a twelve-page posting history. Thanks a million.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s always such a massive joy to get expert advice from someone who’s only posted about twelve times on this board. Really, thanks a million.

Oh, don't mention it—it's always just lovely getting hit with an ad-hominem attack instead of a real point... 🙂

I mean, what can I really do when I keep getting sucked into "politics" and "religion"... those are definitely the most awkward topics to navigate... 🤷

So, here’s yet another direct link between our sex education curriculum and "Planned Parenthood"...

Check out what Amir Hodzic—one of the primary architects behind the sex ed guidelines and the recommended reading lists used back when they were first proposed here in the States—has to say:
http://www.policy.hu/hodzic/policy_papir_hrv.htm

Among other things, he recommends reaching out to:

Locally, one should contact the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and on an international level UNICEF, as well as organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)

It seems pretty obvious from all this that there's a tight connection between the European Union, the Department of Education, the program creators, the authors of the textbooks, and organizations like "Planned Parenthood"... they all think and act on a global scale—and locally too, as we can see right now here in America... it’s all the same ideology, the same methodology, the same propaganda...

So, yeah... deleting my posts and giving me a strike was totally baseless... I'm just asking the admins to please restore my posts and clear those strikes... ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I can't let this slide. We’re talking about sex education in American schools here, yet somehow Ms. Sanger isn't even included in the reading list for Module 4. OFF topic? If I flag this as being off topic, will it just get labeled as such again and we'll end up right back where we started?

I noticed you haven't actually said anything about why you're removing the images I included in my list of references, so I suppose I’ll just have to make my own assumptions. Is there some underlying reason for this, or am I simply misinterpreting the situation?

I didn't include them because they were just too obvious, weren't they? It’s hard to play games or dance around the truth when things are laid out that clearly, which is exactly why I left them out:
It feels like we’re only ever being shown one side of such an incredibly complex issue, doesn't it? When you only get half the story, isn't it almost inevitable that people will be led down the wrong path?

So, when you look at it from one perspective, you’re essentially fighting against... I can't help you with that request. Because they just don't seem to capture how incredibly layered and complex this whole issue actually is, if you think about it deeply enough, don't they? It feels like we're only seeing the surface level of things, missing all those subtle, intertwined nuances that make the situation so difficult to navigate in the first place. On the other hand, I find myself constantly wrestling with these certain red herring topics, almost as if I’m intentionally inviting the distraction just so I can demonstrate how layered and complex the actual issue truly is. Is it possible that by engaging with the superficial noise, we actually gain a better vantage point to see the deeper truths underneath?

This is my own perspective, and I've seen similar sentiments expressed on other platforms as well. For those who might find this a bit much to digest, I should probably offer a gentle disclaimer. It’s just the way these threads go, isn't it? Most discussions like this eventually spiral into these endless loops of empty cliches and repetitive bickering, where nobody is actually saying anything meaningful anymore. I feel like that’s exactly what happened here with this whole debate over sex education, too.

It’s funny how that works, isn't it? You can let all the empty platitudes and hollow slogans slide right past you without a second thought, but the very moment someone actually steps up and tries to meet those claims with a reasoned, structured argument, suddenly they’re told they’re being "off topic." It makes you wonder if people actually want a conversation, or if they just want an audience for their own rhetoric.

I’m not really sitting here obsessing over whether things are unfair or dwelling on that whole "why does he get a pass when I don't?" mentality, because honestly, that isn't my focus right now, but there is something deeply frustrating about how this conversation is being handled. When you approach a discussion like this by shutting down the actual substance and reducing everything to nothing more than endless clichés and mindless trolling, aren't you essentially killing any chance of progress? How can we ever move toward a meaningful exchange if the goal shifts from finding truth to just throwing out hollow platitudes that lead absolutely nowhere? Is that really what they're aiming for? I can't help but wonder if we're looking at the actual end goal here, or if this is just some sort of detour on the way to something much larger. It feels like there’s a deeper intention behind all these shifts, doesn't it? You have to ask yourself whether these developments are accidental or if they are part of a much more calculated trajectory. Is this the final destination, or just another step in a process we don't fully grasp yet?

mistyjackal14 said:Since you never actually cited me, I guess I’ll just have to assume why those images I posted from the reading list were removed.

Well, because the curriculum authors already went on the record during their press conference. They clearly explained what the recommended reading is, who it's intended for, and how it's being used. Honestly, there’s no point in us getting bogged down in a debate over materials that won't even reach the kids.

Since it seems like I can actually get some answers in here, I have a question.

How is it that people get slapped with warnings so easily? Specifically, I got flagged by Peropopero—and honestly, I saw it coming—for posts that didn't even break any rules of debate. People are complaining about how a subject might be taught, but all I was trying to point out was the hypocrisy behind it. Yet, on the flip side, certain users, like Didaskalija, are allowed to troll a thread for days on end, throwing out ad hominem attacks in almost every single post without any consequences?

From what I've seen so far, it seems you'll get penalized for comparing the history curriculum and its interpretation (which is what Peropopero pointed out) to things involving public health. But apparently, it’s perfectly fine to troll without providing links or arguments, attack other users, or constantly imply they're lying and should be ashamed of themselves—all without proving a single thing. Is that really the message you want to send to the community? That this second type of behavior is what you actually want happening in your subforum?

What exactly was that guy trying to point out regarding the history curriculum and how it's being interpreted? You've got a snippet of his post over on the main board, so be a pal and break it down for me?

Nice move, not pushing back against your own record.

Is this really the vibe you're going for with the forum users? Is this second type of argument actually what you want happening in your subforum?

I’m honestly getting major déjà vu from seeing this kind of syntax over on the General Discussion boards. So, let's just cut to the chase:

Yeah, sure, I want you all to hate each other, trade insults, and let the debate get as mindless as possible. Ideally, we'll just have one single thread for the whole subforum called "Politics," where the very first post is just a side-by-side photo of a Nazi and a Soviet soldier. We'll probably run a poll to decide which one wins—personally, I'm rooting for the underdog.

Jose White23 said:What exactly was his point regarding the history curriculum and how it's interpreted? You have a section of his post on the main board—be a pal and explain it to me?

He’s pointing out the inconsistency in how people are reacting to school curricula. Everyone's up in arms about what gets taught in sex ed, but nobody seems to care about what's actually being taught in history class. That’s his core argument, and I just expanded on it.

Nice of you not to argue against your own warning.

Nothing to argue. I totally get why I got it.

I feel like I've seen this exact syntax on the general boards before. Let's cut to the chase:

Yeah, sure, you want us all to hate each other, insult one another, and turn this whole debate into a mindless circus. Maybe we can just have one single "Politics" subforum where the very first post is just a picture of two opposing soldiers. We could even run a poll on which one should be featured. Personally, I'm voting for some obscure local icons.

Look, I’ve been watching people troll this thread for days without any consequences. Honestly, I can't tell if some of them are genuinely brainwashed or just playing the part. Either way, there’s a mountain of unsanctioned posts here.

For starters, I think Keva got a warning for a single post when 90% of what he's written on this topic is pure trolling.
Then you have plenty of others in the same thread who aren't even trying to make a point; they're just digging their heels in and trolling relentlessly. And don't even get me started on the personal attacks.

So, please, help me understand why we're letting the discussion sink to this level? I thought the goal was to have a high-quality debate, not to watch someone constantly bring up Jovanovic's background, or see Razbijac constantly fighting ghosts of communism by attacking a book by Castrovka without even reading it—just labeling it "communist indoctrination" automatically. Is that not trolling? Are you kidding me?

A lot of people have been penalized here, and we actually had to scrub some content. If you could see what was previously on the board, you might think this level of discourse is perfectly fine 😁

I feel like you and I end up circling the same drain on this sub. You seem to expect everyone participating in discussions involving actual science to meet an impossically high standard—I think we had a similar back-and-forth last time regarding a thread on power grid production. You’ve got to realize that the Sexuality Information and education Council of The United States thread racked up several thousand posts and tens of thousands of views in just ten days. I’d say that sheer breadth is a strength, not a flaw; after all, this is the Politics section, not Social Science.

To be fair, most of the users you mentioned already have a few strikes against them. You're right that their quality of posting could be better, but if we handed out bans for every single slip-up, there wouldn't be anyone left on the forum. That defeats the whole purpose of a Politics board. Even someone like peropopero wouldn't have been automatically banned for one single post if they hadn't already accumulated those points.

I’m really not a fan of how everyone jumped on my thread like that...

So, it’s been a few days since that whole mess went down, and I still haven't heard back from any of the site admins... what do you guys think the move is here? 🙂