Bus With Anti-Transgender Message Banned

[Hashirajima]

Like I said every drug has potential side effects, I notice the site did not list how common those side effects actually are, particularly in children when used to block puberty. So no I don't look silly, you however do because you assume that side-effects are common, and not preventable.

You guys claimed that puberty blockers have minimal side effects. I demonstrated that was false.

While we are on side effects, fun fact: That list which every drug comes with, it's a record of every "bad outcome" that ever occurred in Phase II drug trials. In other words, by protocol...

---

If the drug causes a minor loss of limb coordination (which, for example, drowsiness often further result in), which results in the trial participant accidentally kicking a dog and causing the dog to bite him/her...

*Technically* the drug company has to list "dog bites" as a side effect.

---

That said, the above scenario is taken to a rather comedic extreme. But do keep it in mind as a point of reference.

Side effects are lists of things that may possibly happen, to some users, and often under specific situations like drug-drug interaction or drug-illness interactions. Though those too might be listed separately.

For a more realistic side effect: Paracetamol has "liver damage" and "liver failure" listed. Go figure.

[Raszezsar]

Clearly a violation of the human decency of a particular non-destructive part of society and works for no other reason than to encourage non-acceptance of them, promotes delegitimization of legitimate identities, in a way that can disrupt these people's lives, cause problems with social cohesion, cause minority stress and feelings of exclusion, and imply to some that they are at the centre of some grand conspiracy (ie "Don't let them fool you"). On top of this it is purely inflammatory in its nature.

I have no problem with such speech being banned.

But block their freedom of speech is censorship, right?

Whether or not it's under free speech depends entirely on whether or not said speech is used to harm someone, as is the case in any other freedom that people have thought of. That is why, for example, defamation is a crime, as is shouting fire in a crowded theater, an example I'm sure you have heard several times.

It is. There's no problem with reasonable limitations being placed on civil liberties. In fact its directly given legal precedent in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Absolute civil rights, like pretty much anything that are 'absolute, no exceptions' are a serious overlook in the possible negative outcomes that can come from it.

That's why I can't think of a country who takes the absolutist approach with civil rights like freedom of speech, although the U.S. gets a cookie for being close.

Limitations like those that ban hate speach, are acceptable limitations.

Banning hate speech is censorship. That's something that fascist governments do. And yet, I am pretty sure that you despise fascism.

I cringed a little. For a non-leftist you sure abuse the word 'fascist' and Hitler more than actual leftists do.

I support euthanasia. And if a suicidal person is really determined to put an end to their life, ultimately it is their life they want to end. It's best if they have proper access to human-killing material, lest they make a mess of it and more painful than it should be.

Suicide is unacceptable. A person should not have a right to hurt themselves, they should be aided so they can live more functional and healthy lives. This is not compassion, it is apathy toward an epidemic in our society (suicide) and you are helping to push it by stating such.

We can have both, you know.

[Mechanisburg]

If, to avoid people dying or suffering, it'll be required of me to become the worst monster that has ever walked the planet, that's what I will do. I will make even Hitler look like a playful puppy.

Luckily, suppressing hate speech is enshrined in practically every single legislation, like libel and slander laws. And the only real opposition comes from people who think free speech gives them a free pass to say whatever they want whilst being exempt from criticism or the consequences of the speech itself.

Do you consider yourself a facsist?

I consider myself an if you make me come there to fix what you broke then by Azathoth and all its consorts from now on we'll do things my way.

I support censoring and limiting rights to preserve them. Freedom of speech would involve freedom to speak against the freedom people have to enjoy their life and liberties. That speech would inform opinion and that opinion would inform action, therefore that speech should be stopped - AKA no-platform for fascists.

Your right to swing a fists ends where my face begins: but even if neither fist nor face are literal ones, hate speech aims to destroy what it is aimed at. Violence is not only physical, and being social animals words wield an enormous amount of influence.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

Who owns my life: me, or society?

Society is somewhat responsible for your well-being.

I would argue that, for maximum liberty, society should only be responsible where they are directly liable. In my country, the police aren't under any obligation to "save" me, their job is to enforce the law. The firemen and medical people are different, they will try and save you, but then again, does consent to medical care or lack thereof apply here?



If society wants to prevent suicides, if they want to take that duty upon themselves, they need to present every person with an opportunity to live a meaningful life, to make a living wage, to provide for their loved ones, to live a free and beautiful life. If they can't, or more likely won't ensure that, they need to back up.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

Do you consider yourself a facsist?

I consider myself an if you make me come there to fix what you broke then by Azathoth and all its consorts from now on we'll do things my way.

I support censoring and limiting rights to preserve them. Freedom of speech would involve freedom to speak against the freedom people have to enjoy their life and liberties. That speech would inform opinion and that opinion would inform action, therefore that speech should be stopped - AKA no-platform for fascists.

Your right to swing a fists ends where my face begins: but even if neither fist nor face are literal ones, hate speech aims to destroy what it is aimed at. Violence is not only physical, and being social animals words wield an enormous amount of influence.

Problem is, I don't trust the government not to abuse that kind of power. I'd rather regulation of speech be dealt with by nonprofit political organizations or concerned citizens by way of direct social confrontation. Maybe give people the right to swing a fist closer to someone's face than usual. Like, all the way close. Capiche?

[The Serbian Empire]

You guys claimed that puberty blockers have minimal side effects. I demonstrated that was false.

While we are on side effects, fun fact: That list which every drug comes with, it's a record of every "bad outcome" that ever occurred in Phase II drug trials. In other words, by protocol...

---

If the drug causes a minor loss of limb coordination (which, for example, drowsiness often further result in), which results in the trial participant accidentally kicking a dog and causing the dog to bite him/her...

*Technically* the drug company has to list "dog bites" as a side effect.

---

That said, the above scenario is taken to a rather comedic extreme. But do keep it in mind as a point of reference.

Side effects are lists of things that may possibly happen, to some users, and often under specific situations like drug-drug interaction or drug-illness interactions. Though those too might be listed separately.

For a more realistic side effect: Paracetamol has "liver damage" and "liver failure" listed. Go figure.

Although to have liver failure, you must also have liver damage.

[Noraika]

I consider myself an if you make me come there to fix what you broke then by Azathoth and all its consorts from now on we'll do things my way.

I support censoring and limiting rights to preserve them. Freedom of speech would involve freedom to speak against the freedom people have to enjoy their life and liberties. That speech would inform opinion and that opinion would inform action, therefore that speech should be stopped - AKA no-platform for fascists.

Your right to swing a fists ends where my face begins: but even if neither fist nor face are literal ones, hate speech aims to destroy what it is aimed at. Violence is not only physical, and being social animals words wield an enormous amount of influence.

Problem is, I don't trust the government not to abuse that kind of power. I'd rather regulation of speech be dealt with by nonprofit political organizations or concerned citizens by way of direct social confrontation. Maybe give people the right to swing a fist closer to someone's face than usual. Like, all the way close. Capiche?

Thing is, while I fundamentally disagree with those who don't trust the government with that power, which is in my opinion a mute point, but I digress, I can at least understand it better than the position that civil liberties should always be absolute and uncompromising, when in effect they need to be reasonably limited, which is allocated as in the Declaration of Human Rights.

As for transgender treatment? Especially for youth the effects are possible, but overall the general consensus is that they are a very safe option. It's like Hormone Replacement Therapy. In the end there are always risks with any treatment, but they're not likely to be any greater risk than the average girl using basic contraceptives.

[Mechanisburg]

I consider myself an if you make me come there to fix what you broke then by Azathoth and all its consorts from now on we'll do things my way.

I support censoring and limiting rights to preserve them. Freedom of speech would involve freedom to speak against the freedom people have to enjoy their life and liberties. That speech would inform opinion and that opinion would inform action, therefore that speech should be stopped - AKA no-platform for fascists.

Your right to swing a fists ends where my face begins: but even if neither fist nor face are literal ones, hate speech aims to destroy what it is aimed at. Violence is not only physical, and being social animals words wield an enormous amount of influence.

Problem is, I don't trust the government not to abuse that kind of power. I'd rather regulation of speech be dealt with by nonprofit political organizations or concerned citizens by way of direct social confrontation. Maybe give people the right to swing a fist closer to someone's face than usual. Like, all the way close. Capiche?

That'd require de-penalization of assault and battery in response to hate speech, but would still require the government to regulate what hate speech is to regulate what responses are permissible. I'd be down to teaching a lil' bit of kneecapping tango to people who lie and twist the truth to harm people, but that tango would have to be endorsed by the government.

I'd just like to have a dictator who actually cares about the people. Human or machine, but I like metal better. Because a thousand of people working in concert lose their humanity much better (bystander effect and the like), but when only one person is responsible response is prompter.

[Hashirajima]

While we are on side effects, fun fact: That list which every drug comes with, it's a record of every "bad outcome" that ever occurred in Phase II drug trials. In other words, by protocol...

---

If the drug causes a minor loss of limb coordination (which, for example, drowsiness often further result in), which results in the trial participant accidentally kicking a dog and causing the dog to bite him/her...

*Technically* the drug company has to list "dog bites" as a side effect.

---

That said, the above scenario is taken to a rather comedic extreme. But do keep it in mind as a point of reference.

Side effects are lists of things that may possibly happen, to some users, and often under specific situations like drug-drug interaction or drug-illness interactions. Though those too might be listed separately.

For a more realistic side effect: Paracetamol has "liver damage" and "liver failure" listed. Go figure.

Although to have liver failure, you must also have liver damage.

Or congenital liver issues (I think, not sure). Or just plain overdoes.

[Mechanisburg]

While we are on side effects, fun fact: That list which every drug comes with, it's a record of every "bad outcome" that ever occurred in Phase II drug trials. In other words, by protocol...

---

If the drug causes a minor loss of limb coordination (which, for example, drowsiness often further result in), which results in the trial participant accidentally kicking a dog and causing the dog to bite him/her...

*Technically* the drug company has to list "dog bites" as a side effect.

---

That said, the above scenario is taken to a rather comedic extreme. But do keep it in mind as a point of reference.

Side effects are lists of things that may possibly happen, to some users, and often under specific situations like drug-drug interaction or drug-illness interactions. Though those too might be listed separately.

For a more realistic side effect: Paracetamol has "liver damage" and "liver failure" listed. Go figure.

Although to have liver failure, you must also have liver damage.

Yes, and liver failure is a subset of liver damage, but unless I'm mistaken she's pointing out how side effect lists are long and often redundant because every single side effect that happened during experimentation must be listed - someone got liver damage, and someone's liver failed, and thus even if they are effectively the same thing plus or minus a few orders of magnitude they were listed separately.

[Neutraligon]

Although to have liver failure, you must also have liver damage.

Yes, and liver failure is a subset of liver damage, but unless I'm mistaken she's pointing out how side effect lists are long and often redundant because every single side effect that happened during experimentation must be listed - someone got liver damage, and someone's liver failed, and thus even if they are effectively the same thing plus or minus a few orders of magnitude they were listed separately.

Probably because it would be misleading to list liver damage but not include liver failure. I mean just including liver damage sorta suggests that the more extreme form of damage, failure, does not happen.

[Noraika]

So, since it came up about the risks of puberty suppression, here's the organization in charge or the standards of such treatments statement on the risks of it:

Early use of puberty suppressing hormones may avert negative social and emotional consequences of gender dysphoria more effectively than their later use would. Intervention in early adolescence should be managed with pediatric endocrinological advice, when available. Adolescents with male genitalia who start GnRH analogues early in puberty should be informed that this could result in insufficient penile tissue for penile inversion vaginoplasty techniques (alternative techniques, such as the use of a skin graft or colon tissue, are available).

Neither puberty suppression nor allowing puberty to occur is a neutral act. On the one hand, functioning in later life can be compromised by the development of irreversible secondary sex characteristics during puberty and by years spent experiencing intense gender dysphoria. On the other hand, there are concerns about negative physical side effects of GnRH analog use (e.g., on bone development and height). Although the very first results of this approach (as assessed for adolescents followed over 10 years) are promising (Cohen-Kettenis et al., 2011; Delemarre-van de Waal & Cohen-Kettenis, 2006), the long-term effects can only be determined when the earliest treated patients reach the appropriate age.

[The V O I D]

Banning hate speech is a small limitation of freedom of speech to avoid bigger limitations of other, more tangible, freedoms. Because speech informs opinion and opinion informs action, and words have consequences. I am fine with censoring people who have nothing to add to the discussion than their hatred or bile.

So you support the suppression of people you don't agree with? You know who else supported the suppression of political opponents?
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Just saying.

Pretty sure Ad Hitlerum or whatever it's called is an fallacious argument (e.g. trying to say someone's opinions or views are invalid by comparing them to Hitler).

It'd be different if he was literally Hitler.

[Walrusvylon]

So you support the suppression of people you don't agree with? You know who else supported the suppression of political opponents?
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Just saying.

Pretty sure Ad Hitlerum or whatever it's called is an fallacious argument (e.g. trying to say someone's opinions or views are invalid by comparing them to Hitler).

It'd be different if he was literally Hitler.

I wasn't saying his opinions were invalid by comparing him to Hitler. I merely pointed out that Hitler also supported the suppression of his political opponents.

[Mechanisburg]

Pretty sure Ad Hitlerum or whatever it's called is an fallacious argument (e.g. trying to say someone's opinions or views are invalid by comparing them to Hitler).

It'd be different if he was literally Hitler.

I wasn't saying his opinions were invalid by comparing him to Hitler. I merely pointed out that Hitler also supported the suppression of his political opponents.

Not "political opponents", nope. I might be a die-hard communist but I have yet to start kneecapping people who support capitalism.

No, just opponents of the truth, who use language to weave a web of lies, especially when those lies harm people. Those can rot in jail until they either can prove they are not lying or make a public apology and amend to their earlier words.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I wasn't saying his opinions were invalid by comparing him to Hitler. I merely pointed out that Hitler also supported the suppression of his political opponents.

Not "political opponents", nope. I might be a die-hard communist but I have yet to start kneecapping people who support capitalism.

No, just opponents of the truth, who use language to weave a web of lies, especially when those lies harm people. Those can rot in jail until they either can prove they are not lying or make a public apology and amend to their earlier words.

That's a very small distance away from just offing political opponents.

[Raszezsar]

Not "political opponents", nope. I might be a die-hard communist but I have yet to start kneecapping people who support capitalism.

No, just opponents of the truth, who use language to weave a web of lies, especially when those lies harm people. Those can rot in jail until they either can prove they are not lying or make a public apology and amend to their earlier words.

That's a very small distance away from just offing political opponents.

Glad you admit communism is based on fact, like we've told you all these years.

[The V O I D]

As for the bus, good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread misinformation and freedom to hate.

As far as I'm concerned, ban all anti-LGBT buses and messages as hate speech and / or as fraudulent information if they are informing contrary to what is accepted as fact.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's a very small distance away from just offing political opponents.

Glad you admit communism is based on fact, like we've told you all these years.

I've been had, I'm actually a commie.

As for the bus, good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread misinformation and freedom to hate.

As far as I'm concerned, ban all anti-LGBT buses and messages as hate speech and / or as fraudulent information if they are informing contrary to what is accepted as fact.

Na, lets not.

[Galloism]

Glad you admit communism is based on fact, like we've told you all these years.

I've been had, I'm actually a commie.

Hey, I was told I was a socialist because I think government has to function.

So join the glorious revolution, comrade.

[The V O I D]

As for the bus, good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread misinformation and freedom to hate.

As far as I'm concerned, ban all anti-LGBT buses and messages as hate speech and / or as fraudulent information if they are informing contrary to what is accepted as fact.

Na, lets not.

What is good/productive about hate speech and fraudulent information, such as this bus? What does it contribute to society except for hate, anti-LGBT thought (increasing discrimination and likelihood of assault in those who are already transphobic/homophobic and such), and disinformation?

Please, enlighten me as to why we should allow this to continue. "Freedom of speech" isn't good enough - that freedom does not apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

[Uxupox]

As for the bus, good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread misinformation and freedom to hate.

As far as I'm concerned, ban all anti-LGBT buses and messages as hate speech and / or as fraudulent information if they are informing contrary to what is accepted as fact.

Let us ban all things that I dislike. Make it punishable by execution by firing squad for the crime of anti-revolution.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I've been had, I'm actually a commie.

Hey, I was told I was a socialist because I think government has to function.

So join the glorious revolution, comrade.

That does sound pretty socialist to me. Let me guess, you also want government to be involved with my medicare? Smh.

Na, lets not.

What is good/productive about hate speech and fraudulent information, such as this bus? What does it contribute to society except for hate, anti-LGBT thought (increasing discrimination and likelihood of assault in those who are already transphobic/homophobic and such), and disinformation?

Please, enlighten me as to why we should allow this to continue. "Freedom of speech" isn't good enough - that freedom does not apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Actually that freedom does apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

[Galloism]

Na, lets not.

What is good/productive about hate speech and fraudulent information, such as this bus? What does it contribute to society except for hate, anti-LGBT thought (increasing discrimination and likelihood of assault in those who are already transphobic/homophobic and such), and disinformation?

Please, enlighten me as to why we should allow this to continue. "Freedom of speech" isn't good enough - that freedom does not apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Who gets to decide what is hateful and what is misinformation, though?

I mean, clearly scientists should be able to weigh in on the latter, and we all should weigh in on the former, but there are people who think that pointing out men are victims of domestic violence is hate speech, or that pointing out logical inconsistencies by prominent movement figures is hate speech.

[The V O I D]

As for the bus, good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread misinformation and freedom to hate.

As far as I'm concerned, ban all anti-LGBT buses and messages as hate speech and / or as fraudulent information if they are informing contrary to what is accepted as fact.

Let us ban all things that I dislike. Make it punishable by execution by firing squad for the crime of anti-revolution.

Not what I said but okay.

What is good/productive about hate speech and fraudulent information, such as this bus? What does it contribute to society except for hate, anti-LGBT thought (increasing discrimination and likelihood of assault in those who are already transphobic/homophobic and such), and disinformation?

Please, enlighten me as to why we should allow this to continue. "Freedom of speech" isn't good enough - that freedom does not apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Actually that freedom does apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Where all in the Constitution does it specify that the freedom of speech includes the ability to be hateful and spread misinformation? Nowhere? Thought so.

>inb4 fires back with 'it doesn't say anything against it, either'

That needs to be amended, then, so that hate speech and misinformation aren't allowed.

What is good/productive about hate speech and fraudulent information, such as this bus? What does it contribute to society except for hate, anti-LGBT thought (increasing discrimination and likelihood of assault in those who are already transphobic/homophobic and such), and disinformation?

Please, enlighten me as to why we should allow this to continue. "Freedom of speech" isn't good enough - that freedom does not apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Who gets to decide what is hateful and what is misinformation, though?

I mean, clearly scientists should be able to weigh in on the latter, and we all should weigh in on the former, but there are people who think that pointing out men are victims of domestic violence is hate speech, or that pointing out logical inconsistencies by prominent movement figures is hate speech.

Misinformation would be decided by scientists and educators who know better. Hate speech would have staunch definition as extreme racist speech, extreme sexist speech (both for men and women, feminazi or otherwise), extreme homophobic / transphobic speech, etc.

Basically, any speech that is defined as extreme (advocating for harm on those people or advocating removal of rights, etc.; does not include saying a somewhat racist word and such in public, because that can usually be ignored) and hateful (obviously, as I have defined 'hate' earlier) would be banned.