4 ms·

As with any book released with intentional harm aimed at an already marginalized and discriminated against group, people are going to protest it's existence let

As with any book released with intentional harm aimed at an already marginalized and discriminated against group, people are going to protest it's existence let alone it's distribution. That's.. literally free speech. They can write the book but people can also call it trash. Advocating for private civilians to burn a book is very different than nazis writing a list of 30,000 books and more artwork to burn because it's subversive to nazi culture. What utter lunacy.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I don’t think the book was released with ‘intentional harm’. It is about teenagers who are still wards of their parents.
- ReactiveJelly 6y ago
  The reason it makes such big headlines is that natural puberty is also irreversible. If you really are trans, and your parents won't let you talk to a medical professional, then you will have to suffer for a long time and end up with a body that causes you even more pain. So you have a bad tradeoff between "If we give children autonomy, some of them will make bad decisions," which is true, and "If we don't give children autonomy, some of them will have worse mental health outcomes," which is also true. The current discussion on free speech seems to be: "If we allow misinformation to sprint around the world before the truth has got its shoes on, that causes harm. It's okay to censor obvious misinformation if it will protect people," versus, "Why is it obvious? Why is it harm? Some parts of the book are true. What percent needs to be misinformation before censorship becomes valid?" Those are important questions to ask, but they don't generate enough hype and outrage for Twitter to answer them. Never forget that you are staring into a kaleidoscope which is designed to make you feel any strong emotion that keeps you looking. It is not a place where logic thrives. I probably won't be in this thread long, because I can feel my heart rate spiking, but I hope nobody walks away thinking this is a cut-and-dry problem at all. Every difficult problem has two solutions that are simple, obvious, and wrong.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    I am sorry this topic is distressing to you and that’s understandable. I will try to be mindful and any heart spiking statements made are not intentional. Many things to tease out here: 1. Parents are the legal owners of a child’s DNA until the child is an legal adult. Personally, I subscribe to this position. 2. Child rearing must be(imo) in the domain of the parents in charge and not the govt or peer group or popular opinion. 3. Children’s brains..especially teenagers..are not well formed and are not capable of making a well formed decision. Studies say that it’s not until age 25 is a brain considered fully formed to make rational decisions. 4. Teenagers should absolutely talk to medical professionals about what is distressing them ..physically or emotionally. I don’t think there is any debate about trans teenagers wanting to gather more information and research before making very powerful changes that are also likely irreversible. 5. Finally, not everyone is going to accept personal choices of the 7.5 billion odd others. We just keep on creating newer categories of protected classes and placing them in untouchable bubbles with the expectation of immunity from general opinions. This isn’t helping said protected classes at all and only making them more vulnerable.
thinkingemote 6y ago
It's not trivial because, as this is what the article is all about: "That’s what made it so jarring to see an ACLU lawyer — indeed, the group’s most celebrated and popular lawyer — cheering the corporate and cultural repression of a book whose ideas he dislikes." It's a bit like someone on the board of the Free Software Foundation advocating for people to not install Linux anymore because they don't like how Linux doesn't work properly on their Mac! --- Now an argument to say it was trivial would be: 1) its a deleted tweet 2) tweet was mainly a joke 3) tweets dont represent ACLU, its fear mongering 4) tweet based journalism is problematic

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

I don’t think the book was released with ‘intentional harm’. It is about teenagers who are still wards of their parents.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago
The reason it makes such big headlines is that natural puberty is also irreversible. If you really are trans, and your parents won't let you talk to a medical professional, then you will have to suffer for a long time and end up with a body that causes you even more pain. So you have a bad tradeoff between "If we give children autonomy, some of them will make bad decisions," which is true, and "If we don't give children autonomy, some of them will have worse mental health outcomes," which is also true. The current discussion on free speech seems to be: "If we allow misinformation to sprint around the world before the truth has got its shoes on, that causes harm. It's okay to censor obvious misinformation if it will protect people," versus, "Why is it obvious? Why is it harm? Some parts of the book are true. What percent needs to be misinformation before censorship becomes valid?" Those are important questions to ask, but they don't generate enough hype and outrage for Twitter to answer them. Never forget that you are staring into a kaleidoscope which is designed to make you feel any strong emotion that keeps you looking. It is not a place where logic thrives. I probably won't be in this thread long, because I can feel my heart rate spiking, but I hope nobody walks away thinking this is a cut-and-dry problem at all. Every difficult problem has two solutions that are simple, obvious, and wrong.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  I am sorry this topic is distressing to you and that’s understandable. I will try to be mindful and any heart spiking statements made are not intentional. Many things to tease out here: 1. Parents are the legal owners of a child’s DNA until the child is an legal adult. Personally, I subscribe to this position. 2. Child rearing must be(imo) in the domain of the parents in charge and not the govt or peer group or popular opinion. 3. Children’s brains..especially teenagers..are not well formed and are not capable of making a well formed decision. Studies say that it’s not until age 25 is a brain considered fully formed to make rational decisions. 4. Teenagers should absolutely talk to medical professionals about what is distressing them ..physically or emotionally. I don’t think there is any debate about trans teenagers wanting to gather more information and research before making very powerful changes that are also likely irreversible. 5. Finally, not everyone is going to accept personal choices of the 7.5 billion odd others. We just keep on creating newer categories of protected classes and placing them in untouchable bubbles with the expectation of immunity from general opinions. This isn’t helping said protected classes at all and only making them more vulnerable.

thinkingemote 6y ago

It's not trivial because, as this is what the article is all about: "That’s what made it so jarring to see an ACLU lawyer — indeed, the group’s most celebrated and popular lawyer — cheering the corporate and cultural repression of a book whose ideas he dislikes." It's a bit like someone on the board of the Free Software Foundation advocating for people to not install Linux anymore because they don't like how Linux doesn't work properly on their Mac! --- Now an argument to say it was trivial would be: 1) its a deleted tweet 2) tweet was mainly a joke 3) tweets dont represent ACLU, its fear mongering 4) tweet based journalism is problematic