People are prone to bias regardless of their political identification. Identifying as left-leaning provides no more protection against bias than any other political identification.
ToastedPlanet
joined 2 years ago
We should be interested in stopping disinformation in general, but we should do it on a case by case basis. Any banning of a disinformation campaign should be based on a body of empirical evidence. Which we have in the case of gender affirming care. There are numerous studies that have determined that these treatments are safe and effective.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8496167/
The UK recently had a now debunked report, commonly referred to as the WPATH files. The WPATH files are not accepted by the general scientific community and the report has been retracted. Unfortunately this report was used to spearhead anti-trans policies in the UK. This is the kind of disinformation campaign we should not want in society.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-216-instances-of-factual
https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/academia/gender-critical/environmental-progress/wpath-files/
Reputable scientific sources do agree on this issue.
do religious leaflets count as disinformation as they aren’t based on scientific fact? If not then why is there an exemption for that case and not others?
In the US, we have freedom of religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion in a way that does not harm others. We have separation of church and state. The state cannot be used to push any religion on anyone. The United States government cannot send religious leaflets to anyone. Individuals and groups can send whatever religious leaflets they want.
It is not the mail being sent that needs to be based on scientific fact. It is the restriction on the mail that needs to be based on scientific fact. There isn't any harm in religious groups spreading their religion via the mail. There is harm in a targeted disinformation campaign attempting to ban gender affirming care.
A thorough scientific analysis is what should be the basis of any restriction on speech that is considered and deliberated by our democratic institutions. A body of empirical evidence is what should be used to upend existing norms and allowances. In the absence of a body of empirical evidence we should not restrict any speech.
We should value the Earth more than art. If vandalism of paintings bothers people more than the destruction of the Earth then they should reexamine their priorities. No to mention, the vandalism of the art is imagined, the painting is undamaged, but the damage to the planet is real. On top of that, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions then the damage to the planet will continue to worsen.
If Hitler and the Nazis are anything to go by then there is no line.
Not that I'm aware of. This is the first time I've seen the snail.
I’m ignoring your bloviating bullshit cause its already been refuted, despite it being a masquerade and irrelevant to the point of the topic at hand, all of which is nothing but an example of you desperately trying to distract from that topic.
Something that, when you deign to acknowledge the topic at all, have argued against, because you agree with them, and you want to let government employees do whatever undermining, institutional destroying bad behaviors they want as long as you agree with it…
People can confirm these are false statements by reading what we wrote. It is self-evident.
And that topic is mail carriers not having the right to choose what gets delivered and what doesn’t based on personal feels and opinions
Which is the core component of most right wing arguments “I agree with it there for its right and moral”
No where in my argument do I advocate for these positions. The decision should be based on empirical evidence.
I cite sources in my comment here:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16679003/10778009
Here is the link about gender affirming care:
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care
We learn what is true through observation and math. We establish things that we know to be true with scientific studies. When we see a campaign spreading information we know to be false, that would be a disinformation campaign.
Here is a comment where I cite sources:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16679003/10778009
Here is a source from that comment that has a comprehensive overview of gender affirming care:
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care
Here is argument from that comment supported by that source:
Gender affirming care involves helping trans people, both youths and adults, to transition to their gender identity through the use of therapy, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. It is lifesaving care. Unsubstantiated attacks to gender affirming care are a threat to the lives of all trans people. Threatening the lives of people with a disinformation campaign is a breach of the social contract of tolerance. When fascists attempt to spread life-threatening disinformation campaigns, people at all levels of society should stand up to them.
We aren't going to be able to come up with a definition for all possible disinformation campaigns. We do not know everything. However such a definition is not needed to prevent specific disinformation campaigns. And it is possible to know things. Things we know to be true should be held up as the truth. We wouldn't want the mail service to spread a disinformation campaign advocating for putting exposed radioactive material in people's homes. We know radiation is harmful to carbon based life.
Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire is not protected speech. Which is a specific rule about a specific kind of disinformation in a specific circumstance. But we have free speech. So free speech is not a 1 or a 0. Free speech rests on the foundation of the truth. If we know the truth about some topic that is critical to life, we should not allow spreading falsehoods about that topic. Gender affirming care should not be an exception to this principle.
Ignoring my argument is not a refutation of my argument. However my argument is a refutation of your argument.
We should want to improve all of our institutions. Public institutions like the mail service are no exception.
Improving a thing is not the same as destroying a thing. We should improve our institutions by using our institutions. We should not replace democracy with a christo-fascist dictatorship. Falsely conflating these two different actions is not a compelling argument.
The fascists in this case were spreading a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. This in not a false concern, but a well researched fact. In this Canadian woman's case the integrity of the mail service in Canada was being threatened by the fascists. The fascists were the bad-faith actors. With her civil disobedience, she made the strategic decision to defend life and liberty. This Canadian woman was acting in a way that was consistent with our ideals here in the US.
We should change our institutions so that they reject intolerance. This will help us prevent the self-serving agendas of bad-faith actors. Our institutions do not need to collapse in order to accomplish this. In the US, we have the capability to amend the constitution. In fact it is much more difficult to build useful institutions from the ground up, as that historically has required significant military capabilities. The integrity of our institutions is preserved by preventing bad-faith actors from misusing our institutions. Not by blindly allowing fascists to spread disinformation campaigns.
Your argument repeatedly asserts a baseless concern about systemic change for our institutions. There is no utility in being arbitrarily impartial to fascists. Turning a blind eye to their disinformation campaign would not have preserved the integrity of the Canadian mail service. Allowing fascists to takeover our democracy in the US does not preserve the integrity of our democracy. Once bad-faith actors control our institutions the institutions are lost. No amount of arbitrary impartiality before a takeover of our democracy will tie the hands of bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will use this leeway to harm groups of people while they are out of power.
Society should not tolerant intolerance. We should not be complicit in our own destruction. If we want to keep our democracy then we must stand up to fascists who attempt to take it away. Even if this means engaging in civil disobedience. We should not want our institutions to be impartial between truths and falsehoods. We should want our institutions to be committed to the truth even if that means being biased against fascists.
The flaw being that we don't have any system in place to prevent life-threatening disinformation campaigns from being spread in the mail. People being denied the fundamental right to exist is contrary to who we are as the US. It is not a question of morality, but utility. It is a strategically sound decision for people to defend life and liberty against intolerance. The fact MAGA cultists believe they are living an alternate reality should not factor into our decision making process of what we know to be true through research and study.
If fascists takeover our democracy they will have total control of the government. They won't need us to pass laws or amendments for them to abuse our institutions. They will have total control over all of our institutions at that point no matter what we do. Our efforts should be focused on preventing them from taking power, because once they take power they will not give it up freely.
My argument is that we should act based on utility not morality or some arbitrary notion of fairness. We should reject a false equivalency between groups that are pro-democracy and groups that are pro-authoritarian. We should also reject the neoliberal idea that our institutions are perfect and immutable. Our institutions are deeply flawed and need systemic change if we want to continue to benefit from them.
My argument for changing our institutions, including our democracy, so that we can keep them is not a threat. Nor is it more immediate than the MAGA movement's publicly announced christo-fascist takeover. The presidential election is this November 5th.
Words are the medium of my argument. The fact my argument refutes your argument's points does not make the words honeyed.
The MAGA movement is a christo-fascist death cult. Conservative think tanks which may have been influenced by Strauss as much as Schmitt have influenced the MAGA movement with Project 2025 at the very least. However, it would be giving the MAGA movement and Strauss to much credit to say that the MAGA cult is exclusively a Straussian cult. Fascists movements share general attributes with each other, but cannot be accurately described as exclusively the embodiment of one philosopher's views.
Regardless, a no would have been sufficient to the asked question.
Climate change is the existential threat to life as we know it on the planet Earth. Republicans are the ones who need to learn to face this fact. No matter how much political victory they achieve the problem will remain unless we take action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
In the absence of Republicans accepting the body of research that has been done on climate science, it is up to the rest of us to out vote them. This is true of most positions that Republicans advocate for. They aren't based on evidence or on a desire to benefit the majority of the population. Republican positions are designed to benefit themselves and the owner class at the expense of everyone else.
Garnering the political will to out vote an over-represented minority every two years is neither easy nor based on emotion. It is a strategic decision based on evidence to prevent the destruction of the planet and our way of life. It is useful to out vote Republicans because preventing our destruction is a necessary step to improving our society.
As part of that, it is important to dismantle flawed arguments in favor of the Republicans. Such as a misattribution to psychological factors. Which at best is an unfounded attempt to vaguely refer to a reader's insecurities.
Republicans and many other people, regardless of their political leanings, have a tendency to moral reasoning. They attempt to reach a goal by following steps that are justified by subjective morality. Moral positions may inherently feel correct, but aren't inherently supported by any measurable metric. Despite this philosophers assert that morality should be used to dictate the actions of people. While this position may feel intuitively correct, it has a consistent issue.
People can state goals and then can designate a subjective moral position to those goals. However choosing actions to achieve those goals based on reasoning derived from the same subjective moral position is not guaranteed to achieve that stated goal. A way to resolve this is to evaluate actions based on their utility. Does a given action advance the stated goal? If so then it is a course of action worth considering. Rather than asking do the ends justify the means, we should ask do the means accomplish the ends. Thinking about actions in terms of their utility enable us to act in our self-interest. Moral reasoning denies us this as moral ideals demand an inhuman level of dedication to achieve. We are best able to pursue our ideals when we can do so in a way that is useful to that pursuit.
Fascism has taken hold of the Republican Party. Attempting to meet fascists in the middle does nothing to stop climate change. The fascists believe climate change does not exist and that no action is required. No matter how close to the fascists' position on climate change a person gets, that person will be unable to leverage the support of fascists. So while comprising may be a moral position that feels good and has been useful in certain cases such as infrastructure funding, using it is as a strategy is insufficient to accomplish the stated goal of preventing climate change. The position between systemic change and doing nothing will not make use of the limited time window we have to advert key tipping points in the planet's ecosystem.
Climate change seemed the most appropriate example given the statement in your argument of needing to face something that is inescapable. As Republicans are unwilling to act based on evidence on the majority of topics their support cannot be leveraged in a meaningful way for any of those topics. So in general, if a person wants to forward their political goals it is not useful to comprise on issues with a party whose only interest is ruling and not leading.
Also, once the fascists take power we will lose our democracy. As our democracy is our most powerful tool to enact systemic change and wealth redistribution we have a vested interest in protecting our democracy from fascist takeovers. edit: typo