this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
44 points (72.0% liked)
Lemmy.world Support
3191 readers
6 users here now
Lemmy.world Support
Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.
This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.
This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.
To open a support ticket
You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.
Follow us for server news ๐
Outages ๐ฅ
https://status.lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would think specifically not allowing "pro-LGBTQ+ content" is being pretty bigoted. Just because it is a religious belief does not mean it can't also be bigoted.
~~If this little "loophole" is enough to allow this kind of thing to stay on this instance, I would be worried. But I'll wait and see what the admins have to say about it.~~ Resolved: https://lemmy.world/comment/1455537
I think that would depend on what "Pro-LGBTQ+ content" means. It's quite a vague term. Does it refer to posts, discussion topics, or what?
They do follow up by saying that serious discussion about LGBTQ+ issues is acceptable, so the fact that are open to discussion, in theory, could be a point in their defense.
Community's gone now, so it's a moot point, but:
Assume they allow casual images. Someone posts an image of a pride celebration out front of a church. It's removed. Is this not obviously bigoted?
Are you giving an example of a real situation or are you just imagining? There is a big difference.
We cannot ban them because you think they would remove a post like that
Why assume anything? To strawman?
No, to brainstorm a point, seeing as the community has now been banned and thus I have no idea what specific content they allowed outside the rule snippets posted here. Problem's resolved, we're done.