I agree. But I also, probably a bit optimistically, feel that society will course correct at some point and begin to, at least, mandate some ethical walls or restrictions on what is acceptable in the name of health and well-being. Or due to an event that rationalizes a cultural swing back towards individual privacy and protection of information. Likely not in our lifetime but as P-Stu touched on for a different reason earlier, I think as X-ers and Millenials mostly here, we are raising a couple of generations that will be dealing with massive psychological health issues as a direct result of social media and online habits.Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that that was not a serious suggestion.
Social media is certainly not finished developing, but I think it's a mistake to assume it will inevitably evolve into something harmless.
You can't spell failure without FAI
I think your last comment is in response to me?
I wasn’t trying to say that it would inevitably evolve into something harmless and definitely not in an organic way if that is what you meant using the word inevitably.
However, if you agree with the basic premise that SM and bad online habits do cause harm to the individual and further agree that we innately, individually and collectively as a species aim to avoid harm, I think that it is fair to predict that SM will become far more regulated or restricted to lessen the harmful effects. Or that these companies will be required to avoid unethical practices that compound the harmful effects and subject to penalty if they don’t. The beginnings of a swing that way are visible to some degree but it hasn’t yet stuck. As I said above, I think it would take a pretty long time to shift completely - most probably because we are addicted - and likely need to be be based on some sort of triggering incident.
I think our capacity to regulate it lags very far behind the capacity of various state and private groups to weaponize it. You can fine facebook (for example) all you like, but I think the only way to really eliminate the harm it can be put to is to shutter it, and I don't see that happening.
You can't spell failure without FAI
I think it's pretty absurd to consider that you have any kind of position to determine whether people who are complete strangers to you have real mental health problems or not.
It reminds me of the 'sure what do they have to be depressed about' response to somebody with an apparently successful life revealing they suffer from depression.
I just read that Dave Chappelle's stand-up show in Minnesota got cancelled by the booking location due to backlash about his jokes about transgenderism. What do folks think? Are transgender jokes off limits?
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62249771
My perspective is best summed up by a Ricky Gervais quote...
I see offence as the collateral damage of free speech. I hate the thought of a person's ideas being modified or even hushed because someone somewhere might not like to hear them. Outside actually breaking the law or causing someone physical harm, 'hurting someone's feelings' is almost impossible to objectively quantify.
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/20...ans-statements
Quidditch changed its name because of Trans comments from JK Rowling,I mean christ almighty…
Irish by birth ,Harps by the grace of god.
That's quite funny, really. I'm picturing the About page on their site:
"The sport of quadball was invented by She Who Must Not Be Named in 1997..."
You can't spell failure without FAI
fixed that for you
https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2022/...-pride-jersey/
You can't do anything these days without upsetting someone!
Politics should be kept out of sport.
I think that's a fairly inevitable outcome though. The only named objector in the piece (I think) is Haneen Zreika, who's Muslim; Islam is (broadly speaking, cos it's hard to generalise about 1.3bn people) a fairly homophobic culture and although it's not explicitly stated here, I think you can certainly take it that that's the objection here. I think there was a Seventh-Day Adventist player who had a problem with it as well previously? Similar idea.
So where do we draw the line when minority (often imported) cultures and our own disagree like here? Should we be inclusive of homophobic cultures or should we try to re-educate them? It's an issue that's not really discussed (probably because it's easier to ignore it for now), but I think it's only going to become more relevant in the coming years as these cultures become more prominent here (which I don't think is a good idea really, but that's a different thread)
I also think there's no real need for a rugby team to be releasing a one-off pride jersey, but it does seem that's a bandwagon that everyone wants on these days. I'd much rather see them promoting sustainability by not making one-off microfabric jerseys (or changing their kit every year, or needless third-choice kits), but I guess there's no money in that.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 26/07/2022 at 11:27 AM.
Maybe, maybe not. I suppose I was just drawing a parallel between people getting upset about transgender jokes and people getting upset at a pride jersey. Where do you stop ? Should you be able to joke about anything? Should you be able for your jersey make a statement about everything? It seems what's good for goose isn't good for the gander with some people.
I'm not sure Islamic culture is any more or less homophobic than Christian culture? Both are certainly homophobic religions. Should we try and be inclusive of Israel Folau (Christian) who for example thinks gay people are going to burn in hell? I'd be more inclined to let him think whatever he likes - but keep it to yourself etc. Surely that has to be the overriding message.
Haneen Zreika was a different case. The players in this case are Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolu Koula and Toafofoa Sipley. We're looking at deeply Christian pacific islanders (or descended from them) for the most part.
Last edited by osarusan; 26/07/2022 at 9:36 PM.
No, it's a fair point. Should you be able to joke about anything? Arguably so. If it's not funny, it's not funny. I'd be wary about things you can't make fun of though. Father Ted was important in that regard for example.
Islamic culture is a lot more homophobic than Christian culture, yep. Certainly now, given the huge fall-off in Christian observance and even relevance. Almost all countries where homosexuality is criminalised are Muslim countries, and almost all Muslim countries still have it criminalised. It's a couple of hundred years since someone was executed for homosexual acts in Europe, but it's still a death penalty in many Muslim countries. Obviously there's different degrees (if that's the right word) of Christianity like there's different degrees of Islam. The Christian fundamentalists tend not to be able to dictate laws as easily as the Islamic ones though. (Which arguably brings us right back on topic!)
I'd be wary of telling Folau (who is the guy I was thinking of alright) to keep his thoughts to himself though. I'd rather he felt free to express them and was criticised for them. Who gets to decide what views are reasonable to express and what views aren't?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 26/07/2022 at 9:42 PM.
Here's an update from a few days ago in American Faith https://americanfaith.com/ca-bill-al...enate-ab-2223/
From a few months ago, rather
Last edited by dahamsta; 14/09/2022 at 9:13 AM.
"Our apologies.
We can't find the page you're looking for."
That's probably for the best given your earlier contributions if I'm quite honest
A cultural thought leader...Founder
Phil Hotsenpiller
Phil Hotsenpiller is the Founder and President of American Faith and the Senior Pastor of Influence Church. He is a Biblical Prophecy Expert, Cultural Thought Leader, and a Passionate Patriot.
Inevitably, the people who rebel against mainstream medis seek their news from the most f**ked up sources.
@mark12345 don't post that garbage on Foot.ie again. You should be ashamed of your inability to separate facts and science from rhetoric and nonsense.
I thought this thread was worth returning to in light of the Cass Report published this month, and the leaked files from WPATH (pdf link) last month. They're both pretty damning on the whole transgender care issue. WPATH are considered best practice in the area, despite having a significant composition of activists, a flagrant conflict of interests - the report says "WPATH is not a medical group", "WPATH is not a scientific group", "WPATH has misled the public", among others.
The immediate obvious outcome is a large-scale international rowing back on routine proscription of puberty blockers for kids identifying as trans - there's little in the way of any research into their effectiveness or side-effects, and it seems they may well lead to infertility and/or cancer down the line (these are unconfirmed links - but of course the point is they haven't been investigated in trials. And the infertility one obviously stands to reason). The WPATH files showed that kids clearly didn't understand the potential ramifications (with regards fertility in particular) of what they were being proscribed, but they were proscribed them anyway. Some of the medical procedures described are frankly nothing more than mutilation -
It again emphasises a strong link between gender dysphoria and various pre-existing psychological issues (autism, depression, brain trauma, etc) -Gender nullification surgeries, defined by WPATH as “procedures resulting in an absence of external primary sexual characteristics,” and bigenital surgeries, such as the creation of a pseudo-vagina cavity without amputating the penis, are the end result of activists overtaking WPATH [...] When Dr. Thomas Satterwhite, a renowned California surgeon, asks for the group’s input for “non-standard” procedures such as “top surgery without nipples, nullification, and phallus-preserving vaginoplasty,” no one raised any ethical questions about the destruction of perfectly healthy reproductive organs to fulfill customized body modification desires
It refers to a "Transition or suicide myth" -Numerous studies indicate that many adolescents experiencing adolescent-onset gender dysphoria suffer from multiple psychiatric comorbidities that pre-date the onset of distress about their sex. Detransitioner testimony supports the hypothesis that some mentally distressed people could be drawn to self-diagnosing as transgender after being led to believe that sex-trait modification procedures are a miracle cure for all their psychological suffering"
The Cass Report finds this too -But how much truth is there to the claim that genderaffirming care is “suicide prevention care”? The answer is very little [...] As indicated in surveys, transgender-identified youth are at elevated risk for suicidality and suicide.168 Crucially, however, completed suicide in this population is extremely rare, and elevated suicidality is most likely because of comorbid psychopathology, which is extremely common and independently linked to suicidal ideation and behavior. In short, there is no suicide epidemic striking transgenderidentified youth, and the claim that “gender” is the cause of and solution to this group’s suicidal tendencies is a classic mistaking of correlation for causation
She more than once cites the toxicity of debate around the matter as unhelpful (we can see that with the way RAM tried to debate the matter earlier in thread actually, but more clearly on Twitter and even from organisations charged with trans care such as Stonewall) -There are many reports that puberty blockers are beneficial in reducing mental distress and improving the wellbeing of children and young people with gender dysphoria, but as demonstrated by the systematic review the quality of these studies is poor.
The Review has heard that the widespread claims that puberty blockers reduce the risk of death by suicide in this population may place pressure on families to obtain private treatment.
The Review has also heard from GPs who have been put under pressure to continue prescribing such treatments on the basis that failing to do so will put young people at risk of suicide.
The University of York systematic review found no evidence that puberty blockers improve body image or dysphoria, and very limited evidence for positive mental health outcomes, which without a control group could be due to placebo effect or concomitant psychological support.
It looks at the idea (which dahamsta posted here) that only 1-3% of transitioners express regret, let alone want to detransition -The surrounding noise and increasingly toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder and does nothing to serve the children and young people who may already be subject to
significant minority stress.
The quote "I felt like it wasn’t, you know, acceptable to go back. It wasn’t a thing to go back, you know. It wasn’t something that was talked about. It didn’t feel like an option that they wanted to discuss or even mention" is also pretty damning.The current evidence base suggests that children who present with gender incongruence at a young age are most likely to desist before puberty, although for a small number the incongruence will persist.
[...]
Estimates of the percentage of individuals who embark on a medical pathway and subsequently have regrets or detransition are hard to determine from GDC clinic data alone. There are several reasons for this:
• those who do detransition may not choose to return to the gender clinic and are hence lost to follow-up
• the Review has heard from a number of clinicians working in adult gender services that the time to detransition ranges from 5-10 years, so follow-up intervals on studies on medical treatment are too short to capture this
• the inflection point for the increase in presentations to gender services for children and young people was 2014, so even studies with longer follow-up intervals will not capture the outcomes of this more recent cohort.
Her Appendix 4 lists the reasons why many clinics refused to co-operate with her study (not really surprising), and indeed tried to actively thwart it ("disappointingly, as will become clear in this report, attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services.") It's pretty much self-interested activist groups doing what they want with very little in the way of medical/scientific evidence which you'd want to expect from such a serious matter. Cass says "children have been "let down" by a failure to base gender care on evidence-based research."
This is becoming a medical scandal to outstrip cervical cancer, thalidomide and others. It'll be interesting to see where it goes next - you wouldn't bet against class action law suits, and you'd hope some of the people involved serve jail time.
And in their own small way, I think those who put their pronouns on their emails or are otherwise "inclusive" of this sort of stuff will have some small amount of blood on their hands too.
JK Rowling is playing an absolute stormer on Twitter at the moment too - what an unlikely hero in all of this. And the abuse she's taken for it has been horrific.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks