The Mainstream Media Pushing "Trans" Delusion

[Hvizsgyak]

MSN

I don't understand these online news feeds that present controversial subjects as their article topics and then do not allow people to comment on the article unless it is in support of the controversial article. Sensible responses need not apply against these articles, the comment usually doesn't get posted. But I tried with what I thought was a sensible and polite response:

"You got that right! A long while back, yes there may have been one or two trans people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "trans" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false trans lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts trans. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people."


So, after trying to post the above response, I got the message, "This comment doesn't meet the community guidelines; please try another one." Anybody see anything repulsive, mean, hateful in what I wrote? A far as I can tell there is nothing bad about this response. So, I thought we could have a better discussion here on the subject. Here, everybody can say what they want (to a certain degree).

 

[MehGuy]

Personally, I would have had a less sided response. That I view the trans issue more akin to a philosophical problem. One with no one clear answer. That I am not on either side at the moment.

Although I am sure they would not allow this response either, lol.

Really.. if people were more honest about the issue, I would suspect to see more people identifying in the " unsure camp". Instead it seems like many are being pressured to have a clear stance depending on the particular politically social bubble they feel a stronger pull from.

The trans community in my opinion needs to change tactics. Instead of trying to socially pressure people into accepting the reality of their claims they should instead opt to have a more genuine conversation. Not doing so just causes hatred and eventually backlash like I believe we are starting to see now. Everyone has different brain chemistry.. but in my mind.. what is the real point in securing so many fake allies? Does it really make trans people feel better about themselves? Especially in the long run?

 

[bèlla]

The larger concern on the issue is children and that should be the focus. Adults are old enough to ignore things they don’t agree with and call it a day. When it comes to comments you are woefully mistaken in that respect. You aren’t entitled to share your opinion on any site you do not own including social media. They make the rules for the responses they’ll permit. If you want to expound without censure create your own site instead. And a lot of them turn off comments because they’re ignorant and to minimize spam.

~bella

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Munroe Bergdorf - “I thought everyone could be talked around,” she says, fiddling with her fingernails. “And in recent years it has seemed like not only that people aren’t willing to listen to reason, but that we’re stuck in this conflict with each other where we don't even see each other’s humanity. I think it has actually been a real saving grace for me to see the humanity in the people that I disagree with and think, ‘Why are you like this? Where is this coming from?’”


His question, "Why are you like this? Where is this coming from?" floors me. In a room full of people with oval heads, the person with a circular head asks, "why are they like this?" instead of asking, "why am I like this?" Whenever I notice that I'm the only one who thinks a certain way, I question myself first. I might be the odd person who needs correcting. That my thinking may be flawed in that area. And I should look into the matter from another perspective.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

The larger concern on the issue is children and that should be the focus. Adults are old enough to ignore things they don’t agree with and call it a day. When it comes to comments you are woefully mistaken in that respect. You aren’t entitled to share your opinion on any site you do not own including social media. They make the rules for the responses they’ll permit. If you want to expound without censure create your own site instead. And a lot of them turn off comments because they’re ignorant and to minimize spam.

~bella

It would be nice if they would point out what I said wrong so I could correct it but they don't. You can read my response, where is the poorly worded section of my comment. By the way, no child is going to read this column. They barely get a dusting of adult people to read what they wrote. Plus, if the child is looking at the article then they know that particular lifestyle is wrong if the proper responses are there.

 

[bèlla]

It would be nice if they would point out what I said wrong so I could correct it but they don't. You can read my response, where is the poorly worded section of my comment. By the way, no child is going to read this column. They barely get a dusting of adult people to read what they wrote. Plus, if the child is looking at the article then they know that particular lifestyle is wrong if the proper responses are there.

When I mentioned children it was in the context that it’s what adults should be focusing on most. And they’re not going to do that. The volume of comments plus what you’re suggesting would be time prohibitive for most and it’s probably a chatbot or Ai doing it for them.

~bella

 

[Nithavela]

"You got that right! A long while back, yes there may have been one or two trans people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "trans" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false trans lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts trans. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people."

I've highlighted the parts that likely appeared repulsive, mean and/or hateful to the moderators of MSN, for your convenience.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

MSN

I don't understand these online news feeds that present controversial subjects as their article topics and then do not allow people to comment on the article unless it is in support of the controversial article. Sensible responses need not apply against these articles, the comment usually doesn't get posted. But I tried with what I thought was a sensible and polite response:

"You got that right! A long while back, yes there may have been one or two trans people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "trans" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false trans lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts trans. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people."


So, after trying to post the above response, I got the message, "This comment doesn't meet the community guidelines; please try another one." Anybody see anything repulsive, mean, hateful in what I wrote? A far as I can tell there is nothing bad about this response. So, I thought we could have a better discussion here on the subject. Here, everybody can say what they want (to a certain degree).

Well, mean spirited comments often get flagged and removed just like in this forum.
Blessings

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It would be nice if they would point out what I said wrong so I could correct it but they don't. You can read my response, where is the poorly worded section of my comment. By the way, no child is going to read this column. They barely get a dusting of adult people to read what they wrote. Plus, if the child is looking at the article then they know that particular lifestyle is wrong if the proper responses are there.

Using the word " delusional " and assigning it to the author from The Independent as well as the Trans community.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here, everybody can say what they want (to a certain degree).

TOS: Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism may not be promoted* on CF (including member profiles).

 

[Hvizsgyak]

TOS: Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism may not be promoted* on CF (including member profiles).

But you are allowed to defend those above actions on this Forum all you want; it is a fair debate. We don't need to know about your private life.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Using the word " delusional " and assigning it to the author from The Independent as well as the Trans community.

You need to work for the Independent . Thank you for pointing out to me my so called un-communitylike words that got my message flagged. Though, the word "delusional" is an exact work in referring to people who pursue such unnatural acts.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Well, mean spirited comments often get flagged and removed just like in this forum.
Blessings

Those were not mean-spirited words, they were truthful words. Words that people who support those delusional acts cannot tolerate because they know they are true about them.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I've highlighted the parts that likely appeared repulsive, mean and/or hateful to the moderators of MSN, for your convenience.

You too should work for the Independent as a moderator. At least people would know why they are being flagged for their comments. I admit I could rewrite the comment to not have such an edge to it but I had know idea where to start because I didn't see anything terribly wrong on my end. Plus, I see comments from the opposing side that are even worse than mine but they got through and printed. So if we are going to flag meanness that it should go both ways.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

When I mentioned children it was in the context that it’s what adults should be focusing on most. And they’re not going to do that. The volume of comments plus what you’re suggesting would be time prohibitive for most and it’s probably a chatbot or Ai doing it for them.

~bella

Thank you for clearing that up; I appreciate it .

 

[essentialsaltes]

But you are allowed to defend those above actions on this Forum all you want;

I don't believe that. The similar rule about abortion clearly applies to 'defending' even though I cannot have an abortion as I am not a birthing type person.

This place is a safe space for certain conservative views. (And don't get me wrong, such is the absolute right of its private owners)

 

[Nithavela]

You too should work for the Independent as a moderator. At least people would know why they are being flagged for their comments. I admit I could rewrite the comment to not have such an edge to it but I had know idea where to start because I didn't see anything terribly wrong on my end. Plus, I see comments from the opposing side that are even worse than mine but they got through and printed. So if we are going to flag meanness that it should go both ways.

The actual "moderator" was probably an AI that got triggered by some of your words or phrases being forbidden keywords. I wouldn't expect an actual human being involved on such a huge site.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

MSN

I don't understand these online news feeds that present controversial subjects as their article topics and then do not allow people to comment on the article unless it is in support of the controversial article. Sensible responses need not apply against these articles, the comment usually doesn't get posted. But I tried with what I thought was a sensible and polite response:

"You got that right! A long while back, yes there may have been one or two trans people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "trans" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false trans lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts trans. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people."


So, after trying to post the above response, I got the message, "This comment doesn't meet the community guidelines; please try another one." Anybody see anything repulsive, mean, hateful in what I wrote? A far as I can tell there is nothing bad about this response. So, I thought we could have a better discussion here on the subject. Here, everybody can say what they want (to a certain degree).

Consider the source, Hvizsgyak (i.e.: MSN). Where do they place on the political continuum of approximate bias in reporting? One should expect their media avenue to be censured in accordance with the central principles of their business praxis. Obviously, we don't have to agree with their praxis, but we do need to identify and acknowledge those who own the open pastures which we may be non-nonchalantly stepping into.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I don't believe that. The similar rule about abortion clearly applies to 'defending' even though I cannot have an abortion as I am not a birthing type person.

This place is a safe space for certain conservative views. (And don't get me wrong, such is the absolute right of its private owners)

There have been hundreds if not thousands of threads here on the Christian Forum debating abortion and unsavory sexual practices. Of course they aren't going to allow a thread that says "Support Threesome" but they would probably allow a thread that stated "The news media is pushing threesomes as a legitimate lifestyle - they need to stop this deviant lifestyle".

 

[bèlla]

For every pro there’s a con as @essentialsaltes noted. There’s a lot you’re not permitted to say about christian beliefs or denominations. Restrictions were put in place regarding vaccines and personal concerns during that period. Similar revisions were made concerning political discussions. No place is perfect and it really depends on your discourse. Even in supposedly no holds barred communities limitations remain.

I’ve been in a setting years ago that was more permissive. Long before woke, politics, gender and sjw‘s were a point of contention. And it was really ignorant. There were hot button topics that resulted in 50 pages of name calling and insults that wasn’t censored. They were really intelligent which made it worse and it was morbidly hilarious. But I was continually shocked by what they said and wouldn’t post the same. The lone thing they prevented were illegal subjects. Everything else was fair game.

That’s why restrictions have a place. You can’t allow people to say everything that comes to mind because it goes too far and I’ve seen it. And it diminishes the quality of life for the community in the long run.

~bella