Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions ›
The Edge is getting censored on Politics again
The Edge is getting censored on Politics again
Started by Morgan Rodriguez57 · · 👁 7 views · 25 replies
Participants
#22 ·
thanks for the reply... 🙂
just as a little bit of extra context, here's how the connections look:
American sex education -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> local activists -> our domestic sex ed curriculum
Margaret Sanger -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> the USA -> the US government -> the Department of Education -> our domestic sex ed curriculum
just as a little bit of extra context, here's how the connections look:
American sex education -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> local activists -> our domestic sex ed curriculum
Margaret Sanger -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> the USA -> the US government -> the Department of Education -> our domestic sex ed curriculum
#23 ·
Jose White23 said:A lot of people got banned, so we had to scrub some stuff. If you actually saw it, maybe you wouldn't think this is fine 😁
Alright, I’ve got one more question.
How many times do we have to explain the "closing" of the gender studies department—or rather, its merger with departments in neighboring states—before bringing it up becomes straight-up trolling? 🤷
Seriously, every ten pages or so, someone drags out that same "ultimate proof" again. 🙄
#24 ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:thanks for the reply... 🙂
Just as a quick way to look at the connections:
American sex education -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> local advocates -> American sex education
Margaret Sanger -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> USA -> the US government -> Department of Education -> American sex education
Alright, Morgan Rodriguez57, I chatted with the admin and we decided to just pull the off-topic cards, but you’re getting a yellow card for breaking the subforum rules. I'm highlighting that this is a yellow specifically because you know full well we don't hand those out over in Politics.
Secondly, regarding those connections you drew—you're totally entitled to your own conclusions, but let others disagree. Call me subjective if you want, but I don't buy your theory that there's some massive LGBTQ+ lobby pulling all the strings here, even if I'll admit those groups exist. Just because they're in the room doesn't mean they're running the whole show. The bottom line is that the admin answered your question about the fourth module based on facts, and from what I can see, there's no link to your theory other than how you've connected the dots.
The thread won't be restored, and you got the card because you brought up moderator business inside the discussion, which we all know is a no-go.
To wrap things up, here is this article that pretty much aligns with my take on this whole controversial topic.
#25 ·
thanks...
I was actually thinking about suggesting we don't even bother restoring those posts—it feels kind of pointless at this stage...
Look, there’s a massive difference between being a supporter of "progressive" ideas and actually moderating a space where those very same ideas show their ugliest side... I mean, regardless of how much a mod might personally struggle with it, they have to let the "traditionalists" air their views too... anything else just turns into ideological bullying and straight-up censorship...
That’s exactly what the mainstream media does... they basically admit it at their seminars: why would they give any platform to the "old school" crowd when their views are deemed "unacceptable"? That’s why democracy feels dead in the news lately—because they only ever broadcast one single perspective...
As for that religious instructor, he’s essentially just made up his own version of God to believe in... honestly, this is stuff the church has been teaching since the beginning of time—this might even be one of the earliest religious texts outside of the New Testament:
He’d probably be better off sticking to the original script...
---
The topic has run its course, so we can just close this down...
I was actually thinking about suggesting we don't even bother restoring those posts—it feels kind of pointless at this stage...
Look, there’s a massive difference between being a supporter of "progressive" ideas and actually moderating a space where those very same ideas show their ugliest side... I mean, regardless of how much a mod might personally struggle with it, they have to let the "traditionalists" air their views too... anything else just turns into ideological bullying and straight-up censorship...
That’s exactly what the mainstream media does... they basically admit it at their seminars: why would they give any platform to the "old school" crowd when their views are deemed "unacceptable"? That’s why democracy feels dead in the news lately—because they only ever broadcast one single perspective...
As for that religious instructor, he’s essentially just made up his own version of God to believe in... honestly, this is stuff the church has been teaching since the beginning of time—this might even be one of the earliest religious texts outside of the New Testament:
He’d probably be better off sticking to the original script...
---
The topic has run its course, so we can just close this down...
#26 ·
I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone backwards. Everyone’s entitled to their own take on things. My main issue with this specific situation is how people keep dragging up these supposed curses. I haven't seen any actual proof of that, even if I'm cool with everyone interpreting the facts differently.
Closing the thread now.
Closing the thread now.
🔗 Similar threads
- The "casting" headache: Is seamless connectivity actually getting harder? in Audio & Video · Jul 30, 2026
- The "Superteam" obsession is getting exhausting in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- The grind of training camp: is the "bubble" getting too intense? in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- The logistics of international away games are getting insane in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- Is anyone else getting tired of the "prestige" athlete doc era? in Other Arts · Jul 30, 2026