Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[brunumb]

Oh Dear........! Prejudices and bigotries about LGBT people....how very sad.
We have got a Carolina Drake Duck that is gay, or maybe transgender; during some years it will scratch a depression, gather up golf balls that happen to be laying about to then push into the depression and then sit the 'nest' for about a month before leaving it all, and it has no interest in treading its mate (who then seeks the affections of a mandarin drake).

Nature is full of LGBT lives, and we need to walk in to a world free of hated and bigotry such as some extreme Christianity can show.

You are way off base. This is not about hatred or bigotry at all, and as far as I am concerned religion is not even relevant. I bear no animosity towards any people on the basis of their gender or sexual preferences. Why is it so hard to comprehend that one can be opposed to sexualising children and jumping in head first with chemical and medical procedures at the first sign of any non-stereotypical behaviour. It's weird that we tried for ages to overcome the notion that boys should always do traditionally masculine things and girls should always do traditionally feminine things, and now, as soon as they do the opposite, they are obviously the wrong sex. Crazy. It's only true for a tiny percentage of the population. People are being brainwashed and subsequently indoctrinating children into this misguided thinking.

[boatsnguitars]

[oldbadger]

You are way off base. This is not about hatred or bigotry at all, and as far as I am concerned religion is not even relevant. I bear no animosity towards any people on the basis of their gender or sexual preferences. Why is it so hard to comprehend that one can be opposed to sexualising children and jumping in head first with chemical and medical procedures at the first sign of any non-stereotypical behaviour.

Children? Now what age/s do you want to discuss?
Where I live a child can marry, indeed can enjoy sex without marrying, come to think of it....... that's absolutely true, you know.
So let's peg the age of your child who is going to be subjected to chemical procedures, and let's hear what these exact chemical procedures are. You'd better show me a real example as well.

It's weird that we tried for ages to overcome the notion that boys should always do traditionally masculine things and girls should always do traditionally feminine things, and now, as soon as they do the opposite, they are obviously the wrong sex. Crazy.

Oh no. I remember those times of total gender separation with haircuts, hair partings, clothes rules, colours, bicycle rules, the whole sick culture that led our women in to restricted jobs and lifestyles......... dreadful.

Tomorrow I will be watching the womens' world cup football final, our Lionesses have made it to that final and we are so proud of them, you know.
Children should be free to be themselves.

It's only true for a tiny percentage of the population. People are being brainwashed and subsequently indoctrinating children into this misguided thinking.

No. It is for the whole population, a whole new way of thinking for the reduction of bigotry and bullying.

You say its not about hatred, but bigotry and prejudice about LGBT folks IS hatred....... absolutely.

Now let's hear more about 'children being subjected to chemicals' in detail, please.

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #352]

I don't know why politics keeps rearing its ugly head. Political sides should not matter. So many of the people I have listened to have no issue with gay people but make a very strong case against the gender ideology that is capturing the young in particular. The activists are not giving any opportunity for debate or discussion. Ironically, they are behaving as the fascists they accuse their opposition of being. They have no valid case. As soon as they do engage they are shot down with facts and logic so the only way for them to proceed is to intimidate and shut down any discourse.

Peter Boghossian has two gay children himself and is a staunch supporter of gay and trans people. He has quite a few videos discussing discussing the issue and his street epistemology clips are an excellent example of how to do it and how the opposition reacts.

Try this recent discussion.
The Reality of Gender Affirming Care | Peter Boghossian & Stephanie Winn



Just out:

[boatsnguitars]

You are way off base. This is not about hatred or bigotry at all, and as far as I am concerned religion is not even relevant. I bear no animosity towards any people on the basis of their gender or sexual preferences. Why is it so hard to comprehend that one can be opposed to sexualising children and jumping in head first with chemical and medical procedures at the first sign of any non-stereotypical behaviour.

This is a total mischaracterization of the actual facts.
Younger children are given puberty blockers in rare cases. In the most rare and exceptional cases surgery may be recommended, but this is a call that the parents and doctors make together.

The impression you give is that Johnny wants to be Jenny one day and so they head to the All-Night Sex Change Depot in Vegas.

You make it seem like the doctors and parents don't care about the child's well-being; that they just want to stick a thumb in the eye of traditional values.

Let me ask you: How many people do you personally know who have had gender surgery? Have you read any of the stories of people who have had it? How fair have you been in trying to see the other side?

Challenge to you: Post one testimonial from a person who has had gender reconstruction. Find the most sympathetic case. Then, you can post all the others, but I think it fair that you appear to be open to the other side of the issue.

[brunumb]

This is a total mischaracterization of the actual facts.
Younger children are given puberty blockers in rare cases. In the most rare and exceptional cases surgery may be recommended, but this is a call that the parents and doctors make together.

Actually, you seem to be the one with fingers in their ears going "La, la, la, la, la".
The internet has loads of cases where young people are put on the puberty blockers treadmill and any attempt to prevent it is met with a decidedly hostile response. There are testimonials from de-transitioners explaining how they were even encouraged to play the suicide card if they encountered resistance to their wishes. I don't care that adults maintain the desire to mutilate their bodies to meet some unrealistic vision of changing their sex, but all gender affirming care with minors should only involve counseling as far as possible. Do no harm.

[boatsnguitars]

This is a total mischaracterization of the actual facts.
Younger children are given puberty blockers in rare cases. In the most rare and exceptional cases surgery may be recommended, but this is a call that the parents and doctors make together.

Actually, you seem to be the one with fingers in their ears going "La, la, la, la, la".
The internet has loads of cases where young people are put on the puberty blockers treadmill and any attempt to prevent it is met with a decidedly hostile response. There are testimonials from de-transitioners explaining how they were even encouraged to play the suicide card if they encountered resistance to their wishes. I don't care that adults maintain the desire to mutilate their bodies to meet some unrealistic vision of changing their sex, but all gender affirming care with minors should only involve counseling as far as possible. Do no harm.

I don't think those are the rule, and it's certainly not what Trans advocates would say is the way to go forward. i don't see the value in mentioning a few exceptional cases as if it defines the entire debate. Yes, there are extremists, and bad actors.

What I hear you say is, "Hey, what about the cases where people do bad things!?"
I agree, people shouldn't do bad things. That's true for everything.

I simply don't see what this has to do with the actual discussion. For example, people shouldn't pretend to be doctors and operate on people. Yet, it happens. That doesn't have anything to do with people becoming doctors, or the validity of hospitals, etc.

If there is a legitimate case where a child ought to be put on a puberty blocker, or even get surgery, then it is legitimate. And they shouldn't be stopped because of someone who abuses the system. Would you agree?

It's as if we are arguing about speed limits and you keep arguing that people speed - therefore, don't let anyone have a car.

[brunumb]

I don't think those are the rule, and it's certainly not what Trans advocates would say is the way to go forward. i don't see the value in mentioning a few exceptional cases as if it defines the entire debate. Yes, there are extremists, and bad actors.

The more you look into it the more you find that genuine issues involving supposedly transgender children are the exception. Gender ideology has gone way beyond just recognising and acknowledging transgender people. When one has to disavow science and reality in order to somehow validate transgenderism, something is seriously wrong.

This quote somehow feels apt even in this discussion.

Another example of Christians gaslighting people. Up is down, experts aren't experts - non-experts are experts, right is wrong, left is right, weak is strong, the meek shall inherit, wise isn't wise, etc. It's the perfect religion for people who want to remain ignorant but feel their ignorance is a feature not a bug.

[oldbadger]

The more you look into it the more you find that genuine issues involving supposedly transgender children are the exception. Gender ideology has gone way beyond just recognising and acknowledging transgender people. When one has to disavow science and reality in order to somehow validate transgenderism, something is seriously wrong.

How far do you go in recognising and acknowledging transgender people?

Do you acknowledge any transgender people?

[boatsnguitars]

I don't think those are the rule, and it's certainly not what Trans advocates would say is the way to go forward. i don't see the value in mentioning a few exceptional cases as if it defines the entire debate. Yes, there are extremists, and bad actors.

The more you look into it the more you find that genuine issues involving supposedly transgender children are the exception. Gender ideology has gone way beyond just recognising and acknowledging transgender people. When one has to disavow science and reality in order to somehow validate transgenderism, something is seriously wrong.

This quote somehow feels apt even in this discussion.

Another example of Christians gaslighting people. Up is down, experts aren't experts - non-experts are experts, right is wrong, left is right, weak is strong, the meek shall inherit, wise isn't wise, etc. It's the perfect religion for people who want to remain ignorant but feel their ignorance is a feature not a bug.

I still think you are bringing up exceptional cases and not the meat of the discussion. You'd have to prove to me that the exceptions are the hidden agenda, or whatever it is you believe.

To clarify:
Do you agree there are legitimate issue surrounding Trans people, even legitimate cases it is deemed best children have surgery?
Do you agree there are cases where gender at birth is truly at odds with a person's self-identity that can be either aided with surgery, or that another gender category best defines them?
Do you agree there are exceptions to "man v woman", the make up of x and y chromosomes, the expressions of genes, hormones, etc. that can lead to some people falling outside of the traditional Masculine vs Feminine columns?

If "no" to any of these we have a profound disagreement.