When I originally made the suggestion for the section, I titled it the "Controversial Topics" section for a reason. So that it could be a place where controversial topics and issues could be discussed. These topics include things like Politics and Religion. But to any functioning adult, the notion of a political and religious section ought to warn people that things could get heated and that controversial views could be aired and discussed. So I didn't have a problem with it being named as such.

However, if we're going to start locking down on threads and posts that don't break the established forum rules simply because people's feelings get hurt or what gets said is ideologically opposed to what they believe, then you might as well shut the whole section down.

I'm not going to lace my post with buzzwords like censorship or hugbox or anything like that, because they aren't really applicable. It just comes down to this. If we lock threads and sanction posts/posters for actions that don't break the rules due to feelings and politics rather than substantive actionable behaviour, don't hold the pretense of giving the impression that you're welcoming to a broad range of opinions or political debate.

Doubly so when the moderators actively try to derail threads with shitposting because they don't like what is being said, but are too spineless or lazy to confront the people they don't like with actual arguments.

The thing that actually annoys me most about the whole situation is that you aren't even good shitposters that act as a circuit breaker or use/create relatable humour relevant to the thread. You're the crappy kind of circlejerk shitposters that categorise the DA:I section regulars when they find a thread they don't like. It's worst part of BSN all over again.

If you're going to fuck up threads I enjoy reading, at least make them entertaining.