>>1773000

Just my opinion here.

If a forum publicly states that it is not a free speech forum, but designed for those of a particular view point. Then Tuff noodles for anyone who does not like that. Was it OK to force the Boy Scouts to accept girls among other things? This is no different. Everyone has the right to form groups consisting of people they agree with, and for a purpose.

If a forum says they are about free speech(Twitter) then that is different. But even that gets complicated. Do they have to allow illegal content? Porn in all settings? Violence?

>>1773259

That just it. I don't have any problem with what you post here. You made the rules. Its your forum. I either accept it or move on. I am good with that. And a lot of anons do an incredible job here. It is truly amazing how your can all grind together to solve something. And the format works great for what you do. I am simply saying that other forums deserve the same consideration. We need to look at big picture and really think it through.