I get a full-blown case of the willies whenever I see a major publication's online presence announcing "the rules" for discussing anything.

Because right away, you know 1) what topics they'll cover and 2) what will be forbidden.

"Transgenderism" is currently steamrollering across the land, and the media's lusty support for it is reaching saturation levels.

I've expressed my skepticism before, in a post called Is ‘Transgender’ A Real Thing? 

The local rag, the Patriot-News, is of course ga-ga for the body-chopping weirdness, and wants to shush us all, graduate-students-sitting-in-a-circle-on-the-quad style, into swallowing our revulsion and giving transgender activist/actress LaVerne Cox a big hug.

And, with the onrush of coverage, the paper's Chris Mautner [Email him] has helpfully informed the rabble what thoughts they can and can't have about "LGBT" issues:

•  How to discuss LGBT issues on PennLive without violating community rules

The "banned comments" include comparing homosexuality to illegal acts:

1. Comparing homosexuality to illegal acts. This would include pedophilia, incest, bestiality or polygamy. Homosexuality and homosexual acts are not illegal in the United States (see the Supreme Court decision of 2003).

Yeah, but they were Constitutionally criminal for the few hundred years before that.  (See Scalia's 2003 dissent in Lawrence.) Is Chris Mautner suggesting that Supreme Court jurisprudence dictates what a person can and can't think about a topic?  Because I doubt he feels that way about Plessy v. Ferguson.

We're also not supposed to mention homosexuality as a mental disorder, because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), no longer does.  Should we be impressed?  It did, once upon a time.  There was no medical advance in understanding in the meantime —just a cultural one.

It was while reading "the rules" for discussing "LGBT" issues that I encountered "the rules" for discussing race issues:

• How to discuss racial issues on PennLive without violating community rules

Mautner throws out some stunners here, like:

3. Sweeping generalizations. So how does one spot the difference between comments about racial issues and comments that contain racism? Generalizing comments that suggest or state a particular race or ethnic group loves violence or promotes thuggery, for example, do not promote constructive dialogue and will be removed. This goes along with trying to impugn residents of a certain city or neighborhood.

Having said that, comments that seem genuinely interested in talking about the problems in society they think contribute to crime — like poverty, lack of education, violent video games or music — are fine and encouraged. 

Wow.  So, for starters, a ban on "sweeping generalizations" on race basically means you can't talk about any racial reality.  Because as the stats make plain, blacks are in fact more crime-prone.  How does banning this fact make for "constructive dialogue"?

And just so your mind is even further reined in, you're supposed to agree that poverty and lack of education are the sole explanations for black crime.

I almost don't know what to say.

In 2013, I wrote about some of Mautner's previous work, on how to "properly discuss" black-on-white crime:

• PATRIOT-NEWS Knocks Out Comments on the Obvious Racial Motives Behind “Knockout Game” Attacks On Whites