Current Events > "Unfortunate" doesn't begin to describe this site's moderations

(+) Yeah! (+)

WoodenRook posted...

You wouldn't be able to see my posts. And, other than the harassment of trying to get me to talk about something I've stated multiple times I don't want to talk about, you're posts have been mostly fine.

Do you think cisgender children should also be denied gender affirming care, or even hormone medications then? If you don't want to discuss care for trans kids.

Murphiroth posted...

My guy, asking you to look at facts and evidence is not harassment.

You refusing to do so is remarkably telling. Like, you're "not interested" in being more knowledgeable about a subject? Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable?

This isn't a safe place to talk about it for people that don't agree with you. It's also very very very low on my political priorities.

Murphiroth posted...

My guy, asking you to look at facts and evidence is not harassment.

You refusing to do so is remarkably telling. Like, you're "not interested" in being more knowledgeable about a subject? Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable?

/Shush...He's busy carrying that cross on his back.

WoodenRook posted...

aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Like repeatedly pushing something when the person has stated many times they aren't interested.

So you dont know what the word aggressive means either.

So, to be clear, youre simply refusing to accept or even look at information that contradicts your beliefs. Cant imagine why anyone would accuse you of acting in bad faith.

The issue here is that youre clearly acting in bad faith on this issue, which calls into question your original claim that youre being treated unfairly.

Zonbei posted...

So you dont know what the word aggressive means either.

So, to be clear, youre simply refusing to accept or even look at information that contradicts your beliefs. Cant imagine why anyone would accuse you of acting in bad faith.

The issue here is that youre clearly acting in bad faith on this issue, which calls into question your original claim that youre being treated unfairly.

No, I'm refusing to have the conversation at all here. I wasn't arguing at all. In bad faith or otherwise. I was asked my opinion and I stated it. I wasn't going to argue it.

EDIT: Arguing about that subject at least. I'm obviously arguing, but I'm not arguing about that subject.

WoodenRook posted...

This isn't a safe place to talk about it for people that don't agree with you. It's also very very very low on my political priorities.

again, didnt ask you to talk about it. Asked you to read the damn info. Youve clearly refused.

Its so low on your political priorities that you cant be bothered to read an article? But you think children are being harmed? Children being harmed is low on your list?

Youre correct, Rook. This is not a safe place for you to be a bad faith actor who evades questions and believes harmful things while refusing to even glance at factual information, in that its a place where I specifically am going to ridicule you for choosing to be a joke of a person.

WoodenRook posted...

No, I'm refusing to have the conversation at all here. I wasn't arguing at all. In bad faith or otherwise. I was asked my opinion and I stated it. I wasn't going to argue it.

EDIT: Arguing about that subject at least. I'm obviously arguing, but I'm not arguing about that subject.

didnt ask you to argue it. I dont need to hear more obvious lies and ignorance. Thats why I simply posted some links. Are you going to read them? Thats all I need to hear from you.

And yes, if you dont read them, Im going to make fun of you, because you deserve it. Making people who act in bad faith and believe harmful things while refusing to learn or listen feel unsafe is a good thing, actually. If you feel unsafe, its because I make it my business to make bad people feel unwelcome.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yea, I guess we'll see how that works out for me. It makes sense what they said. It's not that I think have an opinion against the TOS. It's just that I feel that my opinion is biased against and more prone to being twisted.

Well an opinion made in ignorance followed by a refusal to actually learn about the topic the opinion is held about is certainly a case of a "wrong" opinion. One that has already been dictated as fact regardless of evidence and is not allowed to be challenged by anybody or else they're the real problem.

WoodenRook, are you apprehensive or afraid of losing social standing with friends and family, maybe a social circle at church or co-workers at your job, if you were to examine the evidence and science behind gender affirming care?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You don't have to tell me what I think. I told you what I think.
[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I did post an opinion after being asked repeatedly for it. I did not post it to argue about it.

And any referencing to scientific articles should only be for what the article states. For example, if an article states "We studied 100 of X and this happened." That's the only conclusion you can come from that study. The only fact is that 100 of x were studied and something happened.

What you all are doing is saying "They studied 100 of X and that happened." So that means "This"..

That's not how critical thinking works. And your opinion on "This" is not a fact. That's why you all get frustrated when people don't agree with you when you argue in definitive "right" or "wrong" on political topics.

Do not not accept scientific evidence and research in other areas?

CSCA33 posted...

WoodenRook, are you apprehensive or afraid of losing social standing with friends and family, maybe a social circle at church or co-workers at your job, if you were to examine the evidence and science behind gender affirming care?

I don't think anyone should talk about topics like this with co-workers. The workplace is for work. But I'm fine having discussions with friends and family members if everyone in the room is comfortable to have the discussion. I'm not going to try to force a conversation in at the dinner table when everyone is talking about their day or something like that...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You're arguing something different and I understand sampling just fine.

If a research paper says "We studied X and this is the result" That is the only fact. Your opinion on what to do with that fact is just that... an opinion.

Rook, how do you get through the day if you refuse to acknowledge or accept information that goes against your worldview and opinions?

WoodenRook posted...

You don't have to tell me what I think. I told you what I think.

I did post an opinion after being asked repeatedly for it. I did not post it to argue about it.

And any referencing to scientific articles should only be for what the article states. For example, if an article states "We studied 100 of X and this happened." That's the only conclusion you can come from that study. The only fact is that 100 of x were studied and something happened.

What you all are doing is saying "They studied 100 of X and that happened." So that means "This"..

That's not how critical thinking works. And your opinion on "This" is not a fact. That's why you all get frustrated when people don't agree with you when you argue in definitive "right" or "wrong" on political topics.

So you didnt read what I posted and arent going to, because everything you just said has nothing at all to do with it.

These things are in fact facts, and the frustration is with people like you who pretend they arent and hide behind opinions. Youre not acting in good faith, and you absolutely should be made to feel unsafe, I.e ridiculed and criticized for being a liar, a hypocrite, and a bad person.

Murphiroth posted...

Rook, how do you get through the day if you refuse to acknowledge or accept information that goes against your worldview and opinions?

I'm not refusing to acknowledge or accept information. I'm refusing to have the discussion.

WoodenRook posted...

You're arguing something different and I understand sampling just fine.

If a research paper says "We studied X and this is the result" That is the only fact. Your opinion on what to do with that fact is just that... an opinion.

Bud you made a fucking claim that its harmful to children. I gave you evidence it isnt. Shut the fuck up about opinions.

Gender affirming care is not something controversial or new, the science behind it is well documented and well established for many decades. This isn't something that's still "up in the air" with respect to the medical community and research.

Just as with cancer research, or heart disease, and many other areas of medicine. Gender affirming care is much more effective than knee or hip surgery.

Zonbei posted...

Bud you made a fucking claim that its harmful to children. I gave you evidence it isnt. Shut the fuck up about opinions.

I never said that. This is the twisting I'm talking about. What I said and what you read are two different things.

WoodenRook posted...

I'm not refusing to acknowledge or accept information. I'm refusing to have the discussion.

Mental gymnastics, the post.

WoodenRook posted...

I never said that. This is the twisting I'm talking about. What I said and what you read are two different things.

WoodenRook posted...

I don't support gender affirming care for kids. That was your original question. I do not feel that kids are old enough to make that decision. Even the ones that aren't permanent.

So to be clear: youre claiming here that you dont believe its harmful to kids? So you dont support it, despite the fact you dont think its harmful?

Why do you care about this if kids are not being harmed?

oh wait, you refuse to discuss it, so you just get to spout shit and then never back it up.

Zonbei posted...

So to be clear: youre claiming here that you dont believe its harmful to kids? So you dont support it, despite the fact you dont think its harmful?

Why do you care about this if kids are not being harmed?

oh wait, you refuse to discuss it, so you just get to spout shit and then never back it up.

For the reason I stated in what you quoted. I do not feel kids are old enough to make that decision.

WoodenRook posted...

For the reason I stated in what you quoted. I do not feel kids are old enough to make that decision.

As you already have been told, the decision to pursue gender-affirming care is made by parents, the kid, and their doctors, just like every other medical decision involving kids.

Why are they not old enough to make that decision, if the decision isnt harmful? Are you against kids deciding to make decisions that arent harmful?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Agreed. But going through gender affirming care is.

WoodenRook posted...

For the reason I stated in what you quoted. I do not feel kids are old enough to make that decision.

This has already been shown to be false and misleading in my first reply to this. There is further information to back it up, as well.

Zonbei posted...

As you already have been told, the decision to pursue gender-affirming care is made by parents, the kid, and their doctors, just like every other medical decision involving kids.

Why are they not old enough to make that decision, if the decision isnt harmful? Are you against kids deciding to make decisions that arent harmful?

I must have missed that in all the replies. In that case, yes, I would never insert my opinion into that situation at all. If a parent, doctor, and the child want it... what I want doesn't matter.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And this is where the twisting becomes moderation. Even though I said the exact same thing posts a go and was told that no one would do that.

WoodenRook posted...

I must have missed that in all the replies. In that case, yes, I would never insert my opinion into that situation at all. If a parent, doctor, and the child want it... what I want doesn't matter.

My guy did you actually think that kids were making these decisions entirely on their own? Really? Like, for fuckin' real?

This is why you need to educate yourself rather than going "I don't wanna!"

WoodenRook posted...

I must have missed that in all the replies. In that case, yes, I would never insert my opinion into that situation at all. If a parent, doctor, and the child want it... what I want doesn't matter.

Zonbei posted...

So to be clear: youre claiming here that you dont believe its harmful to kids? So you dont support it, despite the fact you dont think its harmful?

Why do you care about this if kids are not being harmed?

oh wait, you refuse to discuss it, so you just get to spout shit and then never back it up.

So what is your response to that now?

WoodenRook posted...

I must have missed that in all the replies. In that case, yes, I would never insert my opinion into that situation at all. If a parent, doctor, and the child want it... what I want doesn't matter.

To be clear, thats literally all cases. Glad youre saying something reasonable here though. Now youve just got to read the info I sent you to learn more about why that care is helpful and not harmful.

I think weve pretty categorically proved you arent being moderated for saying things even when theyre objectively wrong.

Murphiroth posted...

My guy did you actually think that kids were making these decisions entirely on their own? Really? Like, for fuckin' real?

This is why you need to educate yourself rather than going "I don't wanna!"

You're just going to argue with everything.

But, yes, I do think that there are attempts at making the process eliminate parental input.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I didn't say for you. I'm claiming that you're trying to set up a moderation for me.

WoodenRook posted...

You're just going to argue with everything.

But, yes, I do think that there are attempts at making the process eliminate parental input.

What about doctor input? Some parents are bigots or actively harm their children, so Im not surprised if you can find SOME effort to circumvent parents in those situations. But nobody is removing doctors from the process.

WoodenRook posted...

I didn't say for you. I'm claiming that you're trying to set up a moderation for me.

shockthemonkey is a different person. And them claiming you said something isnt going to get you moderated unless you ACTUALLY SAID IT.

Zonbei posted...

What about doctor input? Some parents are bigots or actively harm their children, so Im not surprised if you can find SOME effort to circumvent parents in those situations. But nobody is removing doctors from the process.

That's tough. It's just a nasty situation and I really don't have an opinion on it to talk about. I do think the general rule, in my opinion, should be the three groups being involved. But, I'm not saying you're making up a scenario that doesn't happen.