While I think that this OP here:
is a good starting point for a discussion I find it pretty fucking funny that it was published on BNR.
The OP article contains a pejorative, “trannie”, that is explicitly listed as a banned word in Channel Rules and Guidelines. That, combined with the tone of the article would most definitely been have resulted in it not being published and it being ruled as “inflammatory”, “transphobic” and / or “homophobic” if I had submitted it.
I think I know of what I speak as I have submitted a multitude of OPs (see: https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/?s=dowg+closed ) that have not been published because they were deemed “inflammatory”, “transphobic”, “homophobic” or had some other such nitpicky reason thrown out as a reason to quash them. A good portion of these were tamer in their content than the one in question here.
So, can you guys circle your wagons and provide some sort of justification / rationalization for how this one gets published?
I’m looking forward to the song and dance routine that y’all come up with to rationalize / justify yet another prime example of the inconsistent applications of the rules of engagement around here or how you’ll minimize and dismiss yet another example of this inconsistency.