Free speech vs Censorship

[GaP42]

Ask yourself why big Tech doesn't have algorithms that ferret out bullying or other attacks that endanger children and yet they are johnny-on-the-spot when a scientific paper is published that disagrees with the leftist position or an article that presents a conservative point of view in a positive light. The "mis-information" is immediately dumped on and marked as "false" by the "fact checkers". Do they care about our children or do they care about pushing a political agenda? Also, the people who create the software that is intended to addict children (and adults) do not allow their own children to use it.

They care about money - and generate click-bait. Bias is a side-note, it is used to pit one side against the other. As much as you see contrary pieces about scientific papers on climate change, I see the unjustified promotion of those same papers/viewpoints in other outlets.
If I am to understand your viewpoint about free speech, all outlets would be required to publish/discuss equally all viewpoints - no filters. If so, then media has no role in moderating content? No editors? What does that mean for free enterprise in this space? Or is free speech a right, however no one has the right to expect my views to be heard? In which case are those fact checkers just exercising that right? You may as well be p****** in the wind.
Media care about ratings as that translates to $$$$. And there is someone who has a particular craving for attention, a dependency for self-aggrandisement that has now outgrown the media itself.

If you have ratings, you can be the meanest, most horrible human being in the world. There’s only one thing that matters: ratings. You can be nice, or you can be mean. You can be evil. You can be horrible. You can be crude or elegant. There’s only one thing that matters, and that’s ratings," he reiterated. "If you don’t have ratings, it doesn’t matter.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Don't confuse actual "media" such as newspapers and TV stations and magazines and podcasters with search engines and social media companies. The latter are the modern day version of the town square. It is not Google or X or Facebook's place to squash ideas their editorial staff disagrees with. Unlike media companies, this class of company does not produce the content they publish. These are NOT media outlets and they operate under legislative protections that they violate every time they shadowban posters they disagree with and downgrade articles with opinions contrary to the progressive agenda. "Media" companies are always biased. Some more so than others. The NY Times spiked the stories coming out of Germany about what was going on in the concentration camps. That makes them responsible for the deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of people, especially Jews, who would have likely been given refugee status had the actual situation been widely known. The COVID lies also resulted in many deaths. These were not innocent mistakes. The true stories were out there but squashed. The NYT is entitled to make the editorial decision to not publish the truth about the holocaust or COVID. But social media companies can't make that choice since they simply distribute content created by others. Think about it this way, some towns have bulletin boards in gathering places and anyone can post anything they want on those boards. And people go to look at what is posted. How about if there was always someone lurking behind a door and if certain people posted notices or certain topics were posted, the lurker would sneak up to the board and take down or cover up the notices the PTB disagreed with. That is the illegal censorship practiced by search engines and social media.

 

[GaP42]

Don't confuse actual "media" such as newspapers and TV stations and magazines and podcasters with search engines and social media companies.

Social MEDIA companies are not passive: they facilitate and promote the content they garner and host from their "members" and gain significant profit from its popularisation. Their algorithms and biases are tuned to their needs. Search engines operate differently as they present content hosted elsewhere and gain profit from ads placed on their results. Blogs and other content providers tune and pay for their content to get high in the search results. However I am sure you know that...

Unlike media companies, this class of company does not produce the content they publish

However, as noted earlier, there are some who would disagree:

And the High Court of Australia ruled that:

• The High Court has upheld that publishers may be liable for third party comments made on their facebook page.
• Publishers including media outlets, companies and individuals may be liable despite any intention or knowledge of the defamatory matter. Merely by creating a facebook page and allowing comments you may be considered as ‘encouraging and facilitating’ defamatory comments.

"Media" companies are always biased.

So they have responsibility ... and yet you say they should not be allowed to squash opinion. So a free-for-all. How are they then to protect themselves from liability as publishers - if it is accepted that they are (as some quite authoritative sources think they are).

The COVID lies also resulted in many deaths

Yes I know you have this view but you are very biased!

1. There were MANY EXCESS deaths recorded in the statistics directly attributable to COVID in the US. (100,000)
2. A study has reported that 17% of excess deaths attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic were not assigned to Covid-19 on death certificates. ie under-reported.
3. Vaccine efficacy: In June 2020, the FDA placed the threshold for acceptable vaccine efficacy at VE = 50 per cent or higher. This goal was greatly surpassed, with reports of VE = 95 per cent or VE = 94.1 per cent after two doses. Still, even a vaccine 50 per cent effective is very worthy: it can cut the risk of infections or hospitalizations in half. Actually, the same vaccine could present different efficacies, depending on the event of interest - hospitalisations alone for eg.
4. Vaccine testing: how long would you wait? or is that view only formed post the event. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccine development pathway was accelerated. First, as SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, it shares similarities with SARS-CoV-1 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS) and MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, MERS). Prior work on SARS and MERS vaccines reduced time spent on pre-clinical assessment of COVID-19, and the target antigen was identified quickly. Two months after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced and shared, the first phase I clinical trials began in March 2020. Phase II clinical trials began before phase I clinical trials ended. For many COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, phase I and phase II clinical trials were combined to help speed up the progress. However, scientific design was not compromised as the dosage, safety and immunogenicity measures were evaluated. Phase III clinical trials also began before phase II clinical trials were complete. There were a few trials where phase II and phase III were combined. Overlapping and combined phases of clinical trials, the urgency of a need for a safe and effective vaccine, international collaborative efforts, funding and pre-planning in manufacturing have allowed vaccine development time-frame to be compressed to about 10 months.

Are you an expert in such development or studies? Or was it just a BIG PHARMA hit job? There was an element of real concern about how deadly and transmissible was COVID. So much so that there was one very influential person with no medical background who promoted the use of other meds, UNTESTED for effectiveness is treating COVID. But you would not promote the use of medicines untested for that purpose -- you might otherwise be diverting them to useless "cures" that increase the deaths attributable to COVID.​

​

Are the COVID lies about the above? or are they about how the politicians and medical authorities responded or the recommendations about how to reduce/ limit transmission through social contact and mask wearing?​

​

This discussion re COVID is only here as you raised it - and is not meant for continued "on topic" conversation,​

 

[Cotswold]

As you will know some newspapers allow the public to respond to articles online. At the start this was totally free and you only needed to register but now they charge. Several years ago the Telegraph newspaper announced in a short note to the effect that Google was to manage the content but that only showed for a couple of days and never again.
At the time I commented here and there and in relation to an article, referred to Facebook as basically a communistically controlled organisation in my posting. The posting was removed within less than a minute. Some weeks later in another posting I buried in the text that many of the FANNGS are autocratic. In another they were puritanical with Victorian policies. Those too were removed.

I do presume that all newspapers have the same controlling censorship. I also presume that the arbiters of these publication are doing it in order to gather data on all those who post online. Those who sign up to be a "registered customer". It does follow their general obsessive behaviour patterns. Just as credit card companies pass our data to Google et al. First to make a little extra money and also to satisfy Google's belief that it will improve their ability to sell advertising.

I understand that in the newspaper postings they will gather from data on the columns you read online. If they know who you are and adjust the stories to correspond to those that 'they' consider you prefer. Thereby encouraging you to return by association. Clearly, if you are middle to right wing you may read the Telegraph, or the Times but would be little interested in reading the nonsense in the Guardian. And visa versa. Basically, you will associate with the people that you like and agree with. We are all only here because of an interest in Access.

Apart from the fact that the newspaper forums are hugely timewasting. After that tiny sample of mine I stopped posting and deleted the email address used. I've have never subscribed, or joined to Facebook, Twitter or the rest of the so called; social media platforms. I find emails can be bad enough, so don't see the point. In fact I never read, or reply to emails on my phone. Only on the PC once a day. Today I restrict myself to reading online news to fifteen minutes a day and never more than once a day and preferably every few days. It can get to the point that the everchanging stories appear almost to be a serial. Or an online soap opera. It can become an obsession and so timewasting.

I bought my latest car about four years ago. It wants me to link to my phone, which I have never done. I reason that it cannot be of the slightest benefit for me to do that. It therefore must be to someone else's benefit. Why do they need to know where I am and how fast I'm going? Why do they need access to my phone? Would they be saving my calls and texts, even when I'm not in the car?

I delete every request for feedback comment on any service I have received.
First: If I had a problem, or an issue, I'd tell them.
Second: Will it be used by HR to gather data with the specific intention of attacking, abusing, or controlling their colleagues?
Third: The request comes from a totally different company who will sell my data to all and sundry.
Fourth: Just another example of data gathering because they can.
Fifth: Apart from me everyone else involved in that pointless feedback industry. they are getting paid. I receive nothing at all. So why do it?

In fact, come to think of it! What the hell am I doing writing this stuff? Am I timewasting I ask myself?
Reminds me of the song by Otis Redding; Sitting on the dock of the bay.........wasting time. Not me at all.

I'm off, I've got loads to do and little time to do it in!

 

[Pat Hartman]

What Australia does is irrelevant. This is the law in the US that protects social media from being sued for their content. Once a company takes responsibility for content created by others, then it should lose its protection under this law. You can't have it both ways.

Section 230: How it shields Facebook and why Congress wants changes

The law has protected Facebook and other social media giants from legal liability. As a whistleblower casts blame, lawmakers say it should be changed to hold companies accountable.

www.cnet.com

The COVID lies also resulted in many deaths

Yes I know you have this view but you are very biased!
I have never claimed to be totally unbiased as you seem to be claiming that you are.

There were MANY EXCESS deaths recorded in the statistics directly attributable to COVID in the US. (100,000)

Yep. That was done deliberately in order to terrify the sheeple. The guidance issued early in 2020 by the FDA told hospitals and doctors to attribute a death to COVID if it was possible that the deceased might have had COVID. Everyone went along with the joke because if "COVID" was involved in treatment then there was more money in it for them. Do you not understand that this was simply the first of many COVID lies? This was a lie and it was deliberate.

A study has reported that 17% of excess deaths attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic were not assigned to Covid-19 on death certificates. ie under-reported.

Did they exhume bodies and give them COVID tests to determine this statistic?

Vaccine efficacy

There were no double-blind studies so How they can determine efficacy is a mystery to me. This is anecdotal and it "feels good" and so gets repeated. What is not anecdotal is the number of people who had been vaccinated and boosted who still contracted COVID, multiple times. For a while, there were reports that were showing that the more boosted you were, the more likely you were to contract whatever the latest version of COVID that was circulating in the general public. The problem is that COVID, being a respiratory virus, is very much like the common flu that plagues us annually. To product the annual "vaccine", the manufacturers need to guess at what strains of the flu will likely be circulating. If they miss the mark, you get no protection whatsoever from the flu vaccine. COVID is constantly morphing and so maybe unless you are in a high risk group, natural immunity might provide more lasting protection.

Vaccine testing: how long would you wait?

I understand the urgency and ultimately that is why the FDA released the vaccine for "emergency use only". But there were 3 restrictions. One of which was critical and that was that the only way the FDA would release an "untested" vaccine was if there were NO drugs available to treat the disease. That gets us to the full-court press against any drug in testing showed promise at mitigating COVID, especially when administered early enough. My PCP at the time was using Hydroxochloriquie and other off label drugs to treat patients who showed COVID symptoms. This drug has been in general use for more than 50 years. It is used in every country in the world to prevent Malaria. Apparently, whatever this drug does, seems to have similar effects on COVID. BUT, rather than study the couple of drugs that doctors were using off label, Governors prevented pharmacies from filling these prescriptions so as to not interfere with the pesky rule that would prevent the COVID vaccine from being released "for emergency use only" if there were existing drugs that could mitigate the problem until actual trials were performed.

What you are missing though is the fact that big Pharma put enormous pressure on the FDA specifically and the government in general to squash positive reports regarding the drugs that doctors on the ground were using with some success. Social media to the rescue and now Ivermectin is a drug for horses and Hydroxochloriquie causes heart problems and the Governors did their part and people died because there was no treatment that could be given. For the first year of COVID, people were told to suck it up and if they couldn't breath go to the hospital to die. Many could have been saved by early treatment with the banned drugs. But big Pharma got its way and made gazillions of dollars pushing a drug that doesn't actually prevent you from catching the disease, multiple times or from passing it on to others. BIG LIE #2.

Then the "my body my choice" folks decided that only applied to them and not to me so any one who refused to take the "emergency use only" vaccine was cancelled.

 

[GaP42]

@Pat Hartman
The thread topic is “Free speech and censorship”. The OP did not make any reference to “in the USA”. By saying any other opinion/ legal viewpoint is irrelevant as an argument is very arrogant – it reflects a commonly held opinion of the US as being imperialistic, self-centred and ignorant of other world views.

Retreating to the only opinion that matters is that of the US tells me your argument is very weak.

However, don’t rely on Section 230 - it allows those services to “restrict access” to any content they deem objectionable. In other words, the platforms themselves get to choose what is and what is not acceptable content, and they can decide to host it or moderate it accordingly. That means the free speech argument frequently employed by people who are suspended or banned from these platforms — that their Constitutional right to free speech has been violated — doesn’t apply. '
That’s the US way… You may like it to be otherwise – it suits your black and white thinking.

COVID:

I never claimed to be unbiased – there is no one who can claim to be, at least in matters like these. All we can do is look at good evidence and avoid cherry-picking, confirmation bias and exercise our critical thinking capabilities. We all need to be on guard. Perhaps ...

“Terrify the sheeple”

- Aah! - you have special knowledge..

“The guidance issued early in 2020 by the FDA told hospitals and doctors to attribute a death to COVID if it was possible that the deceased might have had COVID. Everyone went along with the joke because if "COVID" was involved in treatment then there was more money in it for them.”

Don’t you mean the CDC? Sloppy

A standard protocol for reporting of cause of death, is attribute the underlying cause, when there are multiple co-morbidities. They also report the co-morbidities.

Stikes me as strange, and suggests over-reach, where you say “Everyone went along with the joke … because there was more money in it for them”. So you are suggesting that the act of reporting cause of death as COVID meant the MDs who did it received more money for doing it? Hmm … Ooh no that is not the claim – its that hospitals are able to claim more for COVID patients because of the services they provide to such patients because of the clinical need to place them on ventilators (for example). So it was not about reporting of deaths from COVID. It was about trying to “game” the system – where MDs make decisions about the clinical care people need. Are you serious? Is that what you are saying skewed the stats on COVID death reporting? It really does not hold up does it? Over-servicing of those struggling to breathe, when ventilators were in short supply. Damn the Hippocratic oath.

That was your BIG LIE # 1

Did they exhume bodies and give them COVID tests to determine this statistic?

You clearly did not think too much about this. On the one hand you have the numbers from the death certificates within a period of time – and the number of COVID death per 1000 of the population ( a std measure). Secondly you have the overall rates of death, per 1000, reported prior to the pandemic and during the pandemic. The pandemic did result in an increase in the rates of death from the normal underlying rate. That suggests the difference is the due to COVID. Then you can consider the difference in the rate reported from Death Certificates and those from the bump of the pandemic – a 17% under-reported level. Perhaps those hospitals could have got more money?

There were no double-blind studies so How they can determine efficacy is a mystery to me. This is anecdotal and it "feels good" and so gets repeated.

And yet there is this from a published review in 2021: A total of 25 RCTs (123 datasets), 58,889 cases that received the COVID-19 vaccine and 46,638 controls who received placebo were included in the meta-analysis.

Some anecdotal evidence on your part. I understand you are not an expert in so many things (science, stats, medicine just as I am not an expert too) but please don’t repeat that misinformation.]

That was your BIG LIE # 2

And then you defend the use of drugs that are not a treatment for COVID, and the MDs that prescribed them. No clinical trial. Hypocritical somewhat? Malaria and COVID are not the same. No wonder I doubt your medical expertise. And your PCP compromised their Hippocratic Oath? Do they also promote other quakery?

From the Lancet: “hydroxychloroquine did not have clinical benefit for COVID-19.”

And re Ivermectin: The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, has stated that there’s “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease”.

Hmm – What BIG LIE (#3) are you promoting? Which BIG PHARMA have you invested in?

People died – may be because they listened to people like you.

Or do you know how to conduct clinical studies, analyse results and report clinical efficacy, because you have qualifications and can see through what BIG PHARMA and their crony scientists do to hide clinical evidence. No, I am not suggesting we take everything they say without scepticism – there is self-interest here so beware when it comes to public argument. But in relation to the observational evidence and the statistical methods and interpretations based on that is much more solid than the stuff marketing says.

So you had no choice, but you refused to kow-tow. So you made a choice, and you live / accept the consequences. Do not let the health of others, that are put at risk by not taking on board advice to prevent spread, impinge upon your rights. Just do as you like. Others had to consider measures that would best protect the vulnerable, not just oneself.

So: “pushing a drug that doesn’t actually prevent you from catching the disease”

Is this an attempt to reframe: this is YOUR BIG LIE no 4.!!

Well the COVID vaccines do not prevent you from ever catching the disease, but there are many considerations that go beyond that:

• Do they give immunity for a period of time? (the frequency of needing a booster is high, and perhaps there is variation amongst the population as to how well it stimulates the patients own immune system, preparing it for a COVID attack).
• Is it possible to identify those at high risk and if so only give to those at higher risk?
• Do they reduce the severity of symptoms experienced?
• Did they reduce the pressure on hospitals and medical staff to cope with the numbers of patients?
• Is natural immunity brought about by getting COVID give you greater protection? At what risk compared to the vaccine?

I hope you can accept the above is given in good faith - albeit from someone who is biased - and may give you some pause for re-assessment.

 

[Jon]

You implicitly asked a question but explicitly stated a different one.

In your scenario, you REALLY asked "Do I want to vote for A or do I want to vote for B?" To which a possible answer is "No to both of them. Ho, hum, I'll go home." Most of the time when you have a choice to make, the exclusion of both options is a possibility.

Your question of "did I decide or not decide" doesn't matter. Your decision of a choice would lead to an action of voting for one or the other. If your decision was "I don't like either one, I'm not going to vote", that has the same result as "I can't choose between either one so I can't vote". If you don't resolve the dilemma of choice, the reason doesn't matter. In either case, you didn't vote. There are only three ends here. Vote A, Vote B, or don't vote. (I'll take door #3, Monty...)

Doc, I think you changed my question. I see what you did there!

My question was not about which candidate to vote for. My question was about if I should vote or not. It was not about voting for a choice between A or B. It was: do I want to vote for (A or B) vs not voting at all? That is a different question to: do I want to vote for A or B?

The question about whether or not to vote does not implicitly ask who to vote for, A or B. It doesn't care about that. It is a different topic altogether.

There are only three ends here. Vote A, Vote B, or don't vote.

That is of course true, although there is a fourth: spoiled ballot!

But while the ends are three choices, my question was not about the three choices. That is a different question. Mine was about whether you decide to vote or not decide to vote. That has nothing to do with WHO to vote for, and all to do with WHETHER to vote or not.

By the way, I did vote this time around. Why? To keep my dad happy! He was incapacitated and so couldn't vote, so I offered to vote for him, using my vote. He, and our cleaner, were enthusiastic about me putting my vote in. It seems I was the only one aware that me going to vote was actually a negative thing for a) traffic poliution, b) personal costs for petrol and car wear and tear, c) lost time when it is finite. And all for something that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to who gets in power. However, I did enjoy it as it got me out of the house, I did something different and it was nice to see the volunteers doing their thing for democracy. The mass delusion that an individual vote counts is real and persistent I now expect signficant tax rises, where the Labour government swoops in to grab what they can. It always happens, whatever they say before being elected. A leopard can't change its spots.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The thread topic is “Free speech and censorship”. The OP did not make any reference to “in the USA”. By saying any other opinion/ legal viewpoint is irrelevant as an argument is very arrogant – it reflects a commonly held opinion of the US as being imperialistic, self-centred and ignorant of other world views.

You are entitled to all your own opinions whether they are valid or not. You can turn my words into pretzels to make your point. Have fun.

I have been talking all along from the perspective of what is happening in the US. I was talking about US laws. Not "laws of the world". Laws of the US. I'm pretty sure since you are not from the US that you don't care what our laws are and since I was talking about how the social media companies were breaking US Law, what Australia is doing is irrelevant to the discussion. Twist that however you like.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Don’t you mean the CDC? Sloppy

The FDA approves drugs.

 

[ColinEssex]

You are entitled to all your own opinions whether they are valid or not.

Shame you don't extend that courtesy to others on these forums.
Col

 

[GaP42]

The FDA approves drugs.

But not advice about recording cause of death on death certificates?
Thanks for allowing me to have my own opinions - free speech lives.
The pretzels are good too!
May you live in interesting times.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Shame you don't extend that courtesy to others on these forums.
Col

Col, I am acting as a member, not as a moderator.

You can't give it up, can you? We get tired of seeing your same old goading behavior all of the time. You are beyond boring with this. I try to be polite but it becomes harder each time you decide to throw in a personal dig at someone. Do you even HAVE a forgiving bone in your body or did you break the last one a long time ago?

If you do things like this because you are bored, go find a card club or a gardening club or a literary club and see if you can give one of their members a little verbal dig now and then. But of course, doing so while face-to-face might have less pleasant consequences, right?

Are you doing this constant goading because you think you are immune to repercussions? Jon's policies stop me from taking punitive action on your account, and so I won't do that. But I can call you out for really sad behavior and let you know that your actions are not appreciated. And your feigned innocence is typical of the actions of all bullies. I leave it to others to decide that for themselves. I already know your style.

 

[ColinEssex]

I could comment on that but I'm not going to. . . . Yet.
Col

 

[Dave E]

Not even close. Once you lose your right to speak your mind, you lose your right to think. If I don't want to hear what you have to say, I don't have to listen. You don't get to override my decision by constantly calling my phone or PM'ing me when I specifically tell you not to.

Listening is not something you can switch off. In the UK we have freedom of expression which allows people to voice their opinions but, unlike in the US, using foul language is deemed to be a public order offence. Hence the different terminology.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So, in the UK, you attempt to legislate morality. OK. Do you turn in your neighbors if they say something you find offensive? Would that make you feel "moral"? Did you learn this behavior from the Nazi's? If you are not ratting each other out, how would anyone ever be prosecuted? Would a Bobbie need to overhear a conversation and butt in to arrest the offender? If you are never going to prosecute someone unless they are exposed by someone who wants to cause them embarrassment and financial pain, why have a law on the books at all?

 

[JWes]

Where do you all stand on this topic? Are you pro free speech, or pro censorship, or somewhere in the middle? And should these rules apply everywhere or only in some places?

"Censorship" is an ugly, Hitlerian thing, but I want a better America where kids can go online, learn stuff and have some fun without finding out about sex, whether twisted and perverse or straight. I don't want a bunch of crap coming at them trying to convince them they are in the "wrong" bodies or that they can change their genders with drugs and surgery. So yeah, I would like to see more protection for the young and impressionable, especially in schools from counselors with LGBTQ agendas.
Censorship? Well, some universities need to honor the system that produced them instead of letting every far-left "professor" fill college students' heads with anti-American, socialist and "woke" ideas that just don't work. I want them to tell the truth instead of the nonsense they have apparently been getting. But that isn't really censorship, is it? Seems like just common dec3ency and good sense ... so "Sensorship?"

 

[JWes]

So, in the UK, you attempt to legislate morality. OK. Do you turn in your neighbors if they say something you find offensive? Would that make you feel "moral"? Did you learn this behavior from the Nazi's? If you are not ratting each other out, how would anyone ever be prosecuted? Would a Bobbie need to overhear a conversation and butt in to arrest the offender? If you are never going to prosecute someone unless they are exposed by someone who wants to cause them embarrassment and financial pain, why have a law on the books at all?

There's an obvious difference between exposing criminals and ratting out neighbors for the gulags of Stalin's USSR. Ha! They didn't need ratting out under Stalin anyway, they were rounding up people to work as slaves regardless of guilt - just by picking people off the streets at random to fill quotas. That's different. If you know someone is making bombs or planning a robbery, pick up the phone and call the cops.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think you missed the point of my comment. I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. When there are laws on the books that would only be enforced by ratting out your neighbors, friends, family, or more likely - enemies, then those are bad laws and have no place in the justice system. They will always be used for ill. You would never turn in someone you like so this will always be used by one person wanting to inflict injury on another. That is evil. Criminal even. It is not the same as laws against stealing or hurting others. Those crimes always have victims. But this type of law is on the books to virtue signal and whenever it is enforced, that act creates a victim that didn't exist before. But using obscenities? Why would you ever agree to that kind of law? If there is someone in your circle who uses language you don't like, object. If they persist, cancel them.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I don't want a bunch of crap coming at them trying to convince them they are in the "wrong" bodies or that they can change their genders with drugs and surgery.

For pre-pubescent kids, I would prefer that they be insulated for a while because a lot of the sexuality issues are too complex for them to fully understand. Once puberty starts in, though, things become different.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I've known a LOT of gay people. New Orleans has a large and open gay contingent. Maybe a dozen or so folks who were gay and would talk about it with me (even though they knew I was straight) made it clear. For kids suddenly starting to "blossom" in their sexuality, where their true preferences emerge, the gay kids quickly learn that something is different about them. At that vulnerable age, kids already feel like outsiders. What we DON'T need is someone telling they are wrong and must suppress those "terrible" urges.

I agree with the premise that we don't need to force stuff on kids too young to fully accept and understand their differences. But we ALSO need to recognize that the kids who ARE different in that way don't need to be chastised or treated like freaks. (They'll get enough of that from well-meaning but ignorant people who don't understand them as they get older.) Life is tough enough growing up through puberty. Adding guilt for something that wasn't a choice is just not needed.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Public schools have gone down into a descending spiral a lunacy that I would never let any of my kids go to in it's current form. They push too much confusing adult mumbo jumbo on them at way too early of an age and then wonder why everyone has ADHD. That was never a thing when I grew up. So what changed? What's different now?

I think society has been steadily degrading and descending down into divided adversarial groups that detract against getting a good education. I used to not like what the Japanese do in their school system, but now I'm starting to think they were right all along. They have a school uniform system which essentially strips the kids identity down to a common denominator that helps to make each of them bond into one single unified group. This then carries over into the main task at hand which is to go to class and learn, and do your homework, and get good grades so you can achieve all of your goals in life. It might seem a little unfair on the surface, but there is a method to the madness.

In Japan, school uniforms, known as “seifuku”, are a long-standing tradition and a significant part of the country’s education system. The uniforms are designed to promote a sense of unity, equality, and discipline among students, and they are worn by students from elementary to high school.

BTW, I typed "What should be censored in schools" into the AI powered browser, and it broke the AI into an infinite loop. It just refuses to answer the question. The answer should be that kids should get a solid education of basics early and only be exposed to some of the finer more sensitive issues later on in life. Think of it like a gradient scale of information. You don't want to overload the kid with adult stuff too early or it's going to confuse them and quite possibly harm them. It's all a balancing act.