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/

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah right, they are poisoning our food, but that is fine because it is turning us gay. A little poison is a small price to pay for that.

What the hell are you talking about?

"They"? Who are "they"? What kind of conspiratorial world do you live in?

[Daedalus X]

Yeah right, they are poisoning our food, but that is fine because it is turning us gay. A little poison is a small price to pay for that.

What the hell are you talking about?

"They"? Who are "they"? What kind of conspiratorial world do you live in?

We need to study the chemical soup that we now inhabit. One likely source is atrazine.

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah right, they are poisoning our food, but that is fine because it is turning us gay. A little poison is a small price to pay for that.

What the hell are you talking about?

"They"? Who are "they"? What kind of conspiratorial world do you live in?

We need to study the chemical soup that we now inhabit. One likely source is atrazine.

Ah, atrazine... Yes, let's study it. And let's study all the other chemicals that might be masculinizing women, or causing men to grow bigger testicles, or causing men to be more violent and toxic, or making people more religious, or less religious.

Let's look at all the chemicals we are exposed to and come up with a simple, succinct answer that explains away all the things we are angry about. Maybe caffeine causes road rage, or balding, or bigger muscles, or incel-ism? Maybe "THEY" are bombarding us with cosmic energy to keep us willing to work 40 hours a week, instead of raiding villages like we used to?!?!?!?!


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6501744/

I just find it absurd to think that you can single out one chemical to explain why people are gay - as if people weren't gay before pesticides...

Plus, what's wrong with being gay?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #315]

You likened "exposing kids to trans issues" to taking them to a porn movie. Again, you need to think of trans people as people, rather than strictly in terms of sex.

You either missed the point or intentionally strawmanned what I said to make your own point above. I didn't make any connection between trans people and sex. The point was that little kids do not have the mental development or life experience to understand sexuality at a level that allows them to process all the implications of becoming trans, homosexual, etc. They will have this knowledge and experience when they are adults, and can then make any decisions they like about their identiies and sex lives.

So you would force transgender people to hide their existence from kids? How would that work? Ban them from being in public? Ban them from holding specific jobs? Be specific.

I said nothing about hiding their existence from kids. I'm arguing that explaining transgenderism to little kids (eg. 8 year olds) is premature, and especially if it is done in such a way as to encourage it and coax kids into thinking they should pursue it when you have a general group of kids in a classroom (for example) who may or may not exhibit gender dysphoria or any other issue. There are teachers doing this all the time and making Youtube videos advocating for transgenderism and LGBQT++ to kids who are too young to understand it. That is my specific complaint. There is no need for a trans person to explain to a little kid that they were once a member of the opposite sex and why they wanted to change, etc. If a trans woman wants to present as a woman, then do that and the kid will probably assume they are a woman without any need for the trans person to get into any details on why/how they transitioned.

Even if those unsubstantiated claims are true, when it comes to actually doing anything it all still has to be done with parental approval and under the care of medical professionals (who will follow the procedures and steps in the Yale article).

Fine ... just don't introduce kids to trans, LGBTQ++ ideas, etc. before they are old enough to have any chance of understanding it all. If a kid as gender dysphoria then work with that kid, but don't have presentations to a general class of 3rd graders by drag queens or trans activists to coax the kids into thinking it is all a game.

What specifically do you mean by "exposure of young kids to trans and LGBTQ+ lifestyles"? And again, what would you change? Ban LGBTQ+ people from being in public? Holding certain jobs?

See above.

Also, you really need to read the Yale article because you seem to be thinking that kids see trans people on social media, think "I want to be like that", then just stroll into a doctor's office, and get surgery.

Another strawman. The first part of that sentence I agree with (the "I want to be like that"). You added the second part to make your strawman. I never implied that I think kids can stroll into a doctor's office and get surgery. My problem is having them exposed to this stuff in such a way that it is encouraged, harmless, reversable, etc. before they are old enough to understand the many implications. If they reach adulthood and are genuinely homosexual, or convinced they would rather live as the opposite sex, then they can make their own decisions and go for it. I have no problem with that and never said otherwise.

Please, at least educate yourself on the basics of this topic.

I'm not uneducated on the topic just because I don't agree with you on certain aspects (eg. that it is OK to introduce little kids to this stuff as harmless fun and games).

You're not making sense. You say you don't want kids being exposed to "LGBTQ lifestyles", which clearly implies forcing them back into the closet.

Is a kid "exposed to LGBTQ lifestyles" when he sees a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public?

Is a kid "exposed to LGBTQ lifestyles" when he sees his gay teacher's spouse (e.g., in a picture)? Or if he hears his gay teacher mention her wife?

Obviously you believe kids who attend drag queen story hours have been "exposed to LGBTQ lifestyles", so would you ban them altogether? Would you ban drag performers altogether?

And if you understand that even if a kid wants to become trans merely because he saw a trans person and liked it, he can't actually do any sort of medical transition (due to medical protocols), then what specifically are you worried about? If he grows older and realizes he's not trans, what's the harm? Kids do things like that all the time...they see ballplayers and want to grow up to be ballplayers, but eventually grow out of it, right? Seems like the only reason you object to that happening with LGBTQs is because you see being LGBTQ as inherently wrong. IOW, a kid sees an astronaut and wants to be one, that's just fine. But a kid sees a drag queen and wants to be one, that's horribly wrong.....because.....?

So let's get specific here....what public policies would you change and/or enact?

[Jose Fly]

There are testimonies from people who have said that there was little or no evaluation of their situation before being offered puberty blockers and referrals to surgery.

Then their doctors are not following established protocols, as described in the Yale SoM article I linked to earlier.

So what we have are some medical professionals violating protocols and procedures for treatment of a specific condition, but rather than go after those specific medical professionals and either bring them into compliance with protocols or get their licenses revoked, you instead use it as an opportunity to denigrate the patients with the condition?

That's terrible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #324]

You're not making sense. You say you don't want kids being exposed to "LGBTQ lifestyles", which clearly implies forcing them back into the closet.

You keep extrapolating things I've said far beyond anything I actually did say. How on earth do you get from a comment that 8 years are too young to understand adult sexuality and gender issues (trans, homosexual, etc.) and should not be exposed to it any detailed way, with forcing LGBTQ people back into the closet? They can stay in the closet, come out of the closet, go to gay bars, change their sex, etc. all they want. My point is that presenting their lifestyles in explicit detail to little kinds before they are old enough to understand any of is wrong. I could care less what adult trans or LGBTQ people do, as long as they don't try to indoctrinate little kids with this stuff before they can possibly understand what it all means.

Is a kid "exposed to LGBTQ lifestyles" when he sees a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public?

Is a kid "exposed to LGBTQ lifestyles" when he sees his gay teacher's spouse (e.g., in a picture)? Or if he hears his gay teacher mention her wife?

Of course not. But if the teacher decides to try and convince the class of 8 year olds that they should all become gay because the teacher is gay, that is a problem.

Obviously you believe kids who attend drag queen story hours have been "exposed to LGBTQ lifestyles", so would you ban them altogether? Would you ban drag performers altogether?

Yet again, you're extrapolating far beyond what I actually said to build another strawman to then make a point about. Drag queens can do anything they want in appropriate places and in front of appropriate audiences (ie. other adults). I said nothing about banning all drag queens or drag performances (or trans, or LGBQT) in general ... just keep it away from little kids and wait until they are old enough to understand things better relating to sexual activity, gender identity, etc. Once they are adults ... they can do whatever they want.

And if you understand that even if a kid wants to become trans merely because he saw a trans person and liked it, he can't actually do any sort of medical transition (due to medical protocols), then what specifically are you worried about? If he grows older and realizes he's not trans, what's the harm? Kids do things like that all the time...they see ballplayers and want to grow up to be ballplayers, but eventually grow out of it, right? Seems like the only reason you object to that happening with LGBTQs is because you see being LGBTQ as inherently wrong. IOW, a kid sees an astronaut and wants to be one, that's just fine. But a kid sees a drag queen and wants to be one, that's horribly wrong.....because.....?

I don't know how else to say it, so I'll just repeat the same thing I've said before. Little kids like 8 year olds do not have the mental development or life experience to appreciate sexual activity and sexual preferences in any detail. I'm opposed to exposing them to this stuff at those ages and instead letting them mature first to the point where they can understand it. Given how impressionable kids are, and how they look at adults as authority figures, why get into the details of transgenderism or LGBTQ stuff with them? Would you get into a discussion of calculus with an 8 year old?

So let's get specific here....what public policies would you change and/or enact?

Don't allow adult level discussions on sexual activity with little kids in general groups of random kids (eg. to an entire class of them in a school) and encourage them to gravitate towards a certain lifestyle. If they ask questions then answer them and explain, but don't have a (for example) lesbian teacher explicitly push that approach to her kids because she sees it as the best lifestyle choice. This kind of thing happens all the time. Do you or did you actually raise any kids to see firsthand how they interpret things at 5, 8. 10 years old?

[brunumb]

Given how impressionable kids are, and how they look at adults as authority figures, why get into the details of transgenderism or LGBTQ stuff with them?

That seems to be the thrust of their strategy. It's hard not to believe that there are pedophiles somewhere in the hierarchy propelling this agenda. We now have them recategorised as MAPs, minor attracted persons, and they have their own flag where the colours of the stripes have special significance. The ideologically captured can't see beyond their need to feel that they are doing good and allegedly helping all these people.

Once everyone is in step and towing the line, how far will their control extend? We are losing our freedom of speech by being compelled to warp our language to conform to the emotional needs of a tiny percentage of the population. We face fines, imprisonment, loss of our jobs and even our children for misgendering or not using the pronouns demanded or refusing to go along with surgical transition procedures. These are the great crimes of the day. All for transgenderism which is purely a state of the mind with no foundation in reality. One can only hope that truth and sanity will prevail.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #320]

Perhaps you can cite examples of the horrors you are mentioning? If you do, please weigh them against the good examples.

Horrors? Really? This article sums up my opinion on the subject pretty well (although it doesn't address the exposure to children issues):

https://www.heritage.org/gender/comment ... e-big-ones

I know it is published by the Heritage Foundation which is a conservative organization, and I'm not Republican or Democrat (being an atheist and a capitalist would likely get me kicked out of either side), but he does sum up some of the problems with the agenda many people are pushing when it comes to trans, LGBTQ, etc. issues.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #320]

Perhaps you can cite examples of the horrors you are mentioning? If you do, please weigh them against the good examples.

Horrors? Really? This article sums up my opinion on the subject pretty well (although it doesn't address the exposure to children issues):

https://www.heritage.org/gender/comment ... e-big-ones

I know it is published by the Heritage Foundation which is a conservative organization, and I'm not Republican or Democrat (being an atheist and a capitalist would likely get me kicked out of either side), but he does sum up some of the problems with the agenda many people are pushing when it comes to trans, LGBTQ, etc. issues.

Anderson's article is heavy on logic and philosophy, light on science. Perhaps we could discuss the science of the gender and transgender debate, for example as presented in this SA article, quoted in part:

Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays the true nature of biological sex. The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY.

A newly fertilized embryo initially develops without any indication of its sex. At around five weeks, a group of cells clump together to form the bipotential primordium. These cells are neither male nor female but have the potential to turn into testes, ovaries or neither. After the primordium forms, SRY—a gene on the Y chromosome discovered in 1990, thanks to the participation of intersex XX males and XY females—might be activated.*

Though it is still not fully understood, we know SRY plays a role in pushing the primordium toward male gonads. But SRY is not a simple on/off switch, it’s a precisely timed start signal, the first chord of the “male gonad” symphony. A group of cells (instrument sections) must all express SRY (notes of the chord), at the right time (conductor?). Without that first chord, the embryo will play a different symphony: female gonads, or something in between.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/
Not to mention surgery may be more cost effective than dealing with the aftermath of pretending gender is as simple as XX=female and XY=male.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2015/study ... -effective

I've had to overcome some of my own biases to be even the tiniest bit receptive to transgender claims. But then, more than 60 years ago I had to give up on my idea that atoms were more complicated than protons, neutrons and electrons... along with letting go of a mild case of homophobia about the same time.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #320]

Perhaps you can cite examples of the horrors you are mentioning? If you do, please weigh them against the good examples.

Horrors? Really? This article sums up my opinion on the subject pretty well (although it doesn't address the exposure to children issues):

https://www.heritage.org/gender/comment ... e-big-ones

I know it is published by the Heritage Foundation which is a conservative organization, and I'm not Republican or Democrat (being an atheist and a capitalist would likely get me kicked out of either side), but he does sum up some of the problems with the agenda many people are pushing when it comes to trans, LGBTQ, etc. issues.

Like I said, I don't read the propaganda. Find a scholarly article.