The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by yudothis
You mean the police intimidating someone for an opinion is fine according to you? Of course only dressed as "they were looking out for him".

Stasi, Gestapo, China, just some things that come to mind in response to your viewpoint.

The modern left is fascist af.

Quite. The modern left is completely authoritarian and fascist. this episode is literally an Orwellian "thought crime." Straight out of 1984.

What worries me is that this policemen (and his superiors) aren't ashamed of the way they treated this guy. It says everything about the direction the British police are heading.
Reply 81
Original post by generallee
Quite. The modern left is completely authoritarian and fascist. this episode is literally an Orwellian "thought crime." Straight out of 1984.

What worries me is that this policemen (and his superiors) aren't ashamed of the way they treated this guy. It says everything about the direction the British police are heading.

Yawn.
Reply 82
Original post by yudothis
You mean the police intimidating someone for an opinion is fine according to you? Of course only dressed as "they were looking out for him".

Stasi, Gestapo, China, just some things that come to mind in response to your viewpoint.

The modern left is fascist af.

Yeah, supporting state provision of key public sevcies, an end to austerity and increased workers rights is really fascist af.

Good point.

Funny, you no doubt berate people on the 'left' for using the terms 'fascist' and 'far right' loosely but here you are, doing exactly the same.
Original post by DSilva
Yeah, supporting state provision of key public sevcies, an end to austerity and increased workers rights is really fascist af.

Good point.

Funny, you no doubt berate people on the 'left' for using the terms 'fascist' and 'far right' loosely but here you are, doing exactly the same.

I didn't say those things are. You are using a straw man. Try again.

And yes, I use that word on purpose because a) it is accurate - policing thought and believing violence or state power to push your ideology to be fine is fascist and b) exactly, they use the term all the time (they like name calling) and yet behave in the same way, highly hypocritical.
Reply 84
Original post by yudothis
I didn't say those things are. You are using a straw man. Try again.

And yes, I use that word on purpose because a) it is accurate - policing thought and believing violence or state power to push your ideology to be fine is fascist and b) exactly, they use the term all the time (they like name calling) and yet behave in the same way, highly hypocritical.

Well you did. Because they're what left wing actually means...

I don't believe in any of the 'sjw' nonsense but very much do believe in the left wing economic arguments. So that makes me fascist? Okay.

I really don't think you know what fascism means. Perhaps studying 1930s and 40s Europe will give you an indication, rather than a few overly idealistic students making stupid complaints.

Stop watering terms down to the point they become meaningless. You can't complain about people using the term 'far right' loosely when you do the same with 'fascist'. Because that just makes you a hypocrite.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
Well you did. Because they're what left wing actually means...

I don't believe in any of the sjw nonsense but very much do believe in the left wing economic arguments. So that makes me fascist? Okay.

I really don't think you know what fascism means. Perhaps studying 1930s and 40s Europe will give you an indication, rather than a few overly idealistic students making stupid complaints.

Stop watering terms down to the point they become meaningless. You can't complain about people using the term 'far right' loosely when you do the same with 'fascist'. Because that just makes you a hypocrite.

I said the "modern left". The part in bold shows I wasn't talking to you, so get your panties out of a wad.

Look at Turkey - would you say they are fascist? Or just authoritarian? What are they doing? Jailing any free thinker, jailing people who do not support the ideology. What does the modern left want to do? They (of course this is a generlization, but as always, extremes drive a movement) even justify violence against those they deem bigot/-phobic/-ist or any other name they like to call people. Canada has human rights tribunals that don't really have any basis in the law, but if you refuse to comply you have to pay a fine or go to prison. And what they basically solely are, is the thoughtpolice. Says something, they decide it's "offensive" and you are 'guilty'. Or the habit of the modern left to doxx/stalk people and harass their employers to get them fired, so that people lose their livelihood. They might pretend they are good people, but in reality they suppress opposing views.
Reply 86
Original post by yudothis
I said the "modern left". The part in bold shows I wasn't talking to you, so get your panties out of a wad.

Look at Turkey - would you say they are fascist? Or just authoritarian? What are they doing? Jailing any free thinker, jailing people who do not support the ideology. What does the modern left want to do? They (of course this is a generlization, but as always, extremes drive a movement) even justify violence against those they deem bigot/-phobic/-ist or any other name they like to call people. Canada has human rights tribunals that don't really have any basis in the law, but if you refuse to comply you have to pay a fine or go to prison. And what they basically solely are, is the thoughtpolice. Says something, they decide it's "offensive" and you are 'guilty'. Or the habit of the modern left to doxx/stalk people and harass their employers to get them fired, so that people lose their livelihood. They might pretend they are good people, but in reality they suppress opposing views.


Fascism is a genuine political ideology, which in the 30s and 40s resulted in the deaths and brutal oppression of millions upon millions. Using it in reference to people complaining about hurt feelings does nothing but completely water down the term, making it meaningless. If you're going to do that, you're every bit as bad as those who accuse anyone who wants restrictions on immigration as 'far right'.


The term 'modern left' is one you've made up. You've taken the views of a handful of people, most of whom aren't actually left wing by any genuine understanding of the term, and are using it to describe millions upon millions of poeple. It's what you no doubt accuse the 'left' of doing with regards to the right and far right.

Which Canadian human rights tribunals have no basis in law? Which human rights tribunals in Canada have sent people to prison? Who in Canada is violently oppressing others? Be specific.

Here's one for you, recently a group of protestors who chained themselves to a runway to stop a plane deporting immigrants from taking off, were jailed under the terrorism act. Yes, terrorism...

And you call 'the left' fascist...
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 87
Original post by generallee
1. The freedom to cause offence (in a non defamatory way) without the involvement of the state is exactly what freedom of speech means. If not, how do you define it, whilst excluding that part of its definition?

2. I was not emotional, I raised my voice because you appeared to be hard of hearing. Or were being obtuse.

3. I understand that you don't like it to be pointed out that to get Humberside County Council to send in its Social Workers over a retweeted limerick is utterly risible. Laughable. Beyond ridicule (let alone serious debate). But in that case you shouldn't make the suggestion.

1. Freedom of expresison is nuanced and complex, but the essence of it is that people are free to express themselves in any regard within the confines of the law. That freedom is independent of the state's own freedom to provide information to people.

2. This is an Internet forum. Nobody can hear you scream.

3. Sure, let's just do nothing then. Then when some bloke goes on to attack a trans individual we can all shrug our shoulders at it and be like "well, what could we possibly do to prevent atrocities like this in the future?".

Original post by yudothis
Right. Who made you the moral apostle?


I'm allowed to express opinions on the subject same as anyone.

Original post by yudothis
He was told by a police officer abusing his power (remember, no crime was committed) that some people don't like his factually correct opinion.


The police should not have been involved. I'm getting tired of saying this over and over.

Original post by yudothis
You mean the police intimidating someone for an opinion is fine according to you? Of course only dressed as "they were looking out for him".

Stasi, Gestapo, China, just some things that come to mind in response to your viewpoint.

The modern left is fascist af.


The police should not have been involved. I'm getting tired of saying this over and over and over.

Original post by yudothis
The police are indoctrinated by nasty lobby groups like Mermaids - google their material that they teach to police and other insitutions, including schools. It is sickening propaganda that a) leads to child abuse and b) suppression of free speech.

Lies and fabrication. Had this discussion already earlier in the thread when Good Bloke tried to slander them, and then found out everything he claimed about the group was actually tabloid media lies. Try actually doing some unbiased research into the topic and you'll see they're nowhere near as bad as their political enemies make out.

Mermaids' only real issue is that they are essentially a group of laypeople providing medical advice, which is due to an utter lack of funding to get any professional help to vulnerable kids. But without Mermaids these kids would have nobody at all to turn to. For them, non-professional advice is still better than nothing.
Original post by yudothis
Again, who made you the moral apostle? Who decides what is "hateful"? The loud bunch of SJWs that cry oppression 24/7?

The stuff he's posting is objectively hateful, i.e. he is expressing hatred for certain individuals. Go ahead and read his Twitter feed yourself if you don't believe me.
Original post by yudothis
You're joking, the entire trans agenda is like flat earth and you're saying people who reject gender ideology are like flat earthers? And "I'm open to scientific evidence".

The projection could not be more real.

Oh bore off. There is a ton of scientific evidence as to how sex, gender and biology work. The medical community are in no doubt that gender dysphoria exists. In the face of that anti-trans folk just purport nonsense - trans leads to more rapes, trans will ruin social cohesion, and so on. The whole anti-trans thing is based on pseudoscience and myths.
Original post by yudothis
You are lying. All major lobby groups demand hormone treatment earlier and earlier and at a whim. This view is not a minority. Doctors are afraid to say no. You are so deluded it's frightening.

This is not true at all. Puberty blockers are generally the only (physical) medication prescribed to under-16s and nobody except some fringe loons are trying to change that. You're completely deluded as to the reality of gender dysphoria treatment. Don't believe everything the extremists tell you.
Original post by Dez
The medical community are in no doubt that gender dysphoria exists. Puberty blockers are generally the only (physical) medication prescribed to under-16s

Nobody denies that gender dysphoria exists. The problem lies in the solutions propounded. Reason dictates that patience, education and counselling would be good for minors. When they have realised that the sexual stereotypes need not apply and that those gender stereotypes being peddled by the trans lobby itself are of no value they can make their own decisions, and a good many will do nothing.The trans lobby, though, rushes to hormones and has its eye on later surgical intervention and encourages minors to take a course they later regret intensely.

And there are members on TSR to which this applies.

You say 'only physical medication' as though puberty blocking is innocuous and harmless. It clearly isn't. Stop doing it.
Reply 89
Original post by Good bloke
Nobody denies that gender dysphoria exists. The problem lies in the solutions propounded. Reason dictates that patience, education and counselling would be good for minors. When they have realised that the sexual stereotypes need not apply and that those gender stereotypes being peddled by the trans lobby itself are of no value they can make their own decisions, and a good many will do nothing.The trans lobby, though, rushes to hormones and has its eye on later surgical intervention and encourages minors to take a course they later regret intensely.

Nonsense. Psychological counselling plays a key part in treating trans individuals, and nobody ever goes as far as sex reassignment without some form of mental therapy (quite a lot of therapy, in fact). The idea that a teen can just rock up to a clinic and get prescribed a pack of testoterone pils is completely unfounded in fact.
Original post by Good bloke
You say 'only physical medication' as though puberty blocking is innocuous and harmless. It clearly isn't. Stop doing it.

Puberty blockers have been subject to plenty of medical research, and they are generally considered to be both harmless and (if necessary) reversible without causing adverse side-effects. They are currently the best treatment we have, and so they come highly recommended by most medical professionals.
Original post by Dez
Puberty blockers have been subject to plenty of medical research, and they are generally considered to be both harmless and (if necessary) reversible without causing adverse side-effects. They are currently the best treatment we have, and so they come highly recommended by most medical professionals.

There is almost no long-term research into their use so you are being specious when you say that.

The individual (being pubertal) is not sufficiently mature to take a decision to be prescribed them. Hence the need to indocrtrinate them, of course.

Gender dysphoria cannot be properly diagnosed for certainty in adolescemce because gender identity is fluctuating wildly anyway in many cases. The high proportion of desisters indicates that early treatment is premature and very inappropriate, even if GD is certain.

In particular, the effect of such hormones on bone mass and growth and on brain development is insufficiently researched.
Reply 91
Original post by Good bloke
There is almost no long-term research into their use so you are being specious when you say that.


Yeah I guess we shouldn't risk giving kids potentially life-saving medication now. If there's a chance they'll have slightly weaker bones 50 years from now, it'll all be for nothing. :rolleyes:

All medications carry some form of risk, doctors need to balance those risks against the risks of harm involved in not taking them, which in some cases can be considerable. Many trans kids self-harm, some will even resort to suicide. I'd rather see a living, relatively healthy adult with a bone disorder over a kid's corpse.

Original post by Good bloke
The individual (being pubertal) is not sufficiently mature to take a decision to be prescribed them. Hence the need to indocrtrinate them, of course.


Doctors are the ones that prescribe medications, not the patient. Again, nobody just rocks up to a clinic and picks up some hormones off the shelf.

Original post by Good bloke
Gender dysphoria cannot be properly diagnosed for certainty in adolescemce because gender identity is fluctuating wildly anyway in many cases.


For a "certainty", no. That's why treatment in early years tends to stick to things that are still physically reversible.

Original post by Good bloke
The high proportion of desisters indicates that early treatment is premature and very inappropriate, even if GD is certain.


First off, the "high proportion of desisters" as you put it is tenuously proven at best. I hope the irony of this bold claim is not lost on you when you're simultaneously arguing against puberty blockers because of a lack of studies. Both areas lack study and ultimately there are way too many unknowns around GD.

Your conclusion is baseless though, regardless of the truth. Clearly kids facing issues of GD and other gender conformity issues need to be treated somehow, leaving them to their own devices for 6 years is not going to help.

Original post by Good bloke
In particular, the effect of such hormones on bone mass and growth and on brain development is insufficiently researched.


Until someone invents a time machine, doctors have to do the best they can with what they have. Until some better form of treatment comes along or enough time has passed to do the research you mentioned, we're stuck where we're at now.
Reply 92
PRSOM
Original post by Dez
For a "certainty", no. That's why treatment in early years tends to stick to things that are still physically reversible.
Both areas lack study and ultimately there are way too many unknowns around GD.

Incomplete brain development is reversible?

There are too many unknoiwns around, which is why you should desist from abusing troubled minors and trying to impose such an orthodoxy until they have been properly researched.
3. Sure, let's just do nothing then. Then when some bloke goes on to attack a trans individual we can all shrug our shoulders at it and be like "well, what could we possibly do to prevent atrocities like this in the future?".


Sometimes stuff like this happens and it can't be prevented. Do you honestly think if someone wants to attack trans people that having the cops harass them for expressing an opinion on social media is going to prevent that? If anything it will just give them ammunition to justify their attack, they will see it as they've had to resort to violence because the state won't allow any peaceful criticism of trans people. You've got to let people


The stuff he's posting is objectively hateful, i.e. he is expressing hatred for certain individuals. Go ahead and read his Twitter feed yourself if you don't believe me.

So what? He is allowed to have and express hateful opinions. Lots of people have posted objectively hateful stuff towards him, they are expressing hatred towards him for posting the limerick. If they are free to post hatred towards him, why can't he post hatred too?
Reply 95
Original post by Good bloke
Incomplete brain development is reversible?

There are too many unknoiwns around, which is why you should desist from abusing troubled minors and trying to impose such an orthodoxy until they have been properly researched.


That's not what the majority of doctors, scientists etc. agree upon, medical research has proven these drugs to be a lot safer than many other drugs that get prescribed to people, and they can save lives. Your objections are not founded in reality, and it's clear you do not have trans kids' best interests at heart when you suggest stopping their only available form of treatment.

Original post by Cast Iron
Do you honestly think if someone wants to attack trans people that having the cops harass them for expressing an opinion on social media is going to prevent that?

I've said this far too many times now, No, I don't believe the police should have been involved. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post since it's clear your reading comprehension is comprehensively lacking, since this one fact seems unable to penetrate your brain and I am tired of continually repeating myself.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Dez
I've said this far too many times now, No, I don't believe the police should have been involved. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post since it's clear your reading comprehension is comprehensively lacking, since this one fact seems unable to penetrate your brain and I am tired of continually repeating myself.


Translation - Boo hoo! I have lost the argument so I'm going to cry in my corner!


What do you think should have been done then? You claim you don't want police involvement but you also mock the idea that nothing should be done. But you don't appear to have said what you do want done.
I don't mean that's likely to happen. But if history is anything to go by, when people are prevented from expressing their opinions via peaceful means, they often try to find other ways to do it and usually that means violence. Imagine if the situation was flipped here and you weren't allowed to say anything pro LGBT. Whenever someone posts something in support of LGBT rights they get called by the police because someone felt their post was hateful. If you believed strongly in LGBT rights would you simply be quiet on that matter or would you try expressing your opinion via other means? Some people would take to more direct forms of activism possibly including violence against MP's who were known to be anti LGBT, and they would justify that violence by saying the normal peaceful means of expressing their opinion was closed off to them.



Do you think gays would have equal rights in law today if people in the past had that attitude? Without smartphone cameras and cctv everywhere it was much easier for gay people in the past to hide their sexuality and have secret liaisons. They could have lived their lives without ever speaking out about it, but some felt that it was a cause worth speaking out about, they believed in it so much they kept discussing it and bringing it into the spotlight and eventually they got the law changed. All because men and women decided they wanted to speak out about something they felt was wrong, rather than just live their life peacefully without speaking about it.

There is a lot of hatred and threats directed at people who come out with anti LGBT opinions these days, that it would be far easier to just keep quiet if you have those views. But if people still express those opinions in spite of all that, then it must be a cause they really believe strongly in. And while I don't agree with what they're saying I tolerate and respect their right to have it.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Dez
medical research has proven these drugs to be a lot safer than many other drugs that get prescribed to people,

How so? As you have already agreed, and is fact, they have not had much long-term testing. They are essentially being used experimentally.
Reply 99
Original post by Good bloke
How so? As you have already agreed, and is fact, they have not had much long-term testing. They are essentially being used experimentally.

I'm sure there are other pharmaceutical drugs out there with less risk involved than puberty blockers, but hey, I'm no medic. Either way, it's better to have "experimental" drugs over self-harm. Self-harm and suicide attempts are far more dangerous to these kids' health than puberty blockers ever could be.

Latest