If this is the kind of sources you look to for current events, you might want to take a step back and reevaluate. This stuff is straight poison for people looking to reinforce their hate.
Let's play two lies and a truth.....
1. I am an evil crab person using subterfuge on GBAtemp to cause a civil war amongst you deplorable humans. I accidentally exposed my ulterior motive.
2. I have been brainwashed by "hate" sites and have been pushing their agenda by brainwashing leftist to our side.
3. I didn't read the article, didn't know anything about the source that I never have been on before, or even notice that they put a "p" in the LGBTQP in the title of the story. I do not like having a bunch of searches for pedo stuff in my Google search history and gave the first source I saw for the "love has no age" issue to give an example yuyuyup was asking for. That's why I stated if they wanted more examples to look it up themselves. My only reason for sourcing that site was only to provide evidence of my prior statement and never intended to push an agenda or rhetoric with that source. Regardless if you see this as an excuse or reason, that is the situation.
Still the Snapchat filter using a pedo term was real, used by the LGBTQ, and the source was evidence as such. I'm surprised Google even had that site as a top result seeing that their algorithm is designed to not push far-right wing sites.
(Hint: #3 is the truth)
You talk a lot about people being brainwashed by propaganda.
I still stand by my prior statements related to this to be true. How about the phrase, "Trump is a racist"? How many times do you think the MSM has said this since he started running for president till today? Enough for people to believe it without any proof whatsoever when there is plenty of evidence proving otherwise.
The democrats work hard to make criminals look good while doing all they can to make
OUR president look bad. Sounds like pushing propaganda to me. They don't want people to be labeled by bad words, but only if you're not a Republican/Conservative.
Well gee I'm not sure you have much standing when it comes to what's right and moral, you left out incredibly pertinent details about the original San Fransisco Chronicle article. Why wouldn't you be entirely up-front about this article? Why create an entire discussion thread, but try to obfuscate crucial points? Doesn't seem very productive, or right, or moral.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I stand by facts and truth. I cannot and will not try to force you to believe what is "right and moral". The culture of the people around you, the websites you visit, and tv channels you watch will determine that for you. I'm not a democrat, so I don't trick people to think my way with propaganda, either.
I have no clue what you mean by leaving out pertinent details, not being up-front about this article, or how I obfuscated crucial points. I posted the article in its entirety to the OP, added a couple of lines of my own (both as a play on words using the subject of the story), and left it for others to decide what it meant to them.
The only thing you could say I added to the story was the title of this thread that I used to summarize it. Nowhere in the first post did I push any agenda or rhetoric.