Detransitioners vs the Progressive Machine: A Legal and Cultural Time Bomb

[Whiskey]

So far, the only outlier seems to be the OP, which presumably suggests that there must be an absolute and total ban on gender-affirming care. Everyone else who has offered an opinion states that surgery should wait until the age of consent, but that this guideline should not be absolute.

The discussion was moving along productively, sharp but respectful, until the moderator stepped in and fabricated a position the OP never took. Claiming the OP “presumably” wants a total ban on gender-affirming care isn’t interpretation; it’s invention.

A discussion can survive disagreement, even hard disagreement, but it cannot survive falsification. When a moderator lies or misrepresents a poster, it derails the entire exchange. Instead of debating ideas, participants are forced to defend themselves against accusations and distractions. That’s not moderation; that’s manipulation.

The ethical foundation of moderation is impartiality; the practical foundation is accuracy. Violate either, and what was a conversation becomes performance and narrative management dressed up as dialogue.

One's option is to just let it slide. Another option is the meet the conditions as presented. Moderators can't be put on the foe list and they can't be muted so best to just address it directly, I s'pose.

[canpakes]

So far, the only outlier seems to be the OP, which presumably suggests that there must be an absolute and total ban on gender-affirming care. Everyone else who has offered an opinion states that surgery should wait until the age of consent, but that this guideline should not be absolute.

The discussion was moving along productively, sharp but respectful, until the moderator stepped in and fabricated a position the OP never took. Claiming the OP “presumably” wants a total ban on gender-affirming care isn’t interpretation; it’s invention.

A discussion can survive disagreement, even hard disagreement, but it cannot survive falsification. When a moderator lies or misrepresents a poster, it derails the entire exchange. Instead of debating ideas, participants are forced to defend themselves against accusations and distractions. That’s not moderation; that’s manipulation.

The ethical foundation of moderation is impartiality; the practical foundation is accuracy. Violate either, and what was a conversation becomes performance and narrative management dressed up as dialogue.

One's option is to just let it slide. Another option is the meet the conditions as presented. Moderators can't be put on the foe list and they can't be muted so best to just address it directly, I s'pose.

Binger, you’ll probably survive the syndrome you claim to be experiencing, considering that ‘fabricating a position’ for others has been a pastime of yours here for a while.

The OP is capable of weighing in on their position if I’ve somehow misrepresented it, but until that happpens, you may also be fabricating their position.

If you’re itchin’ to start another ‘moderator’ argument derail, we can move that over to another new thread. That would be respectful to the OP, correct?

[Whiskey]

The discussion was moving along productively, sharp but respectful, until the moderator stepped in and fabricated a position the OP never took. Claiming the OP “presumably” wants a total ban on gender-affirming care isn’t interpretation; it’s invention.

A discussion can survive disagreement, even hard disagreement, but it cannot survive falsification. When a moderator lies or misrepresents a poster, it derails the entire exchange. Instead of debating ideas, participants are forced to defend themselves against accusations and distractions. That’s not moderation; that’s manipulation.

The ethical foundation of moderation is impartiality; the practical foundation is accuracy. Violate either, and what was a conversation becomes performance and narrative management dressed up as dialogue.

One's option is to just let it slide. Another option is the meet the conditions as presented. Moderators can't be put on the foe list and they can't be muted so best to just address it directly, I s'pose.

Binger, you’ll probably survive the syndrome you claim to be experiencing, considering that ‘fabricating a position’ for others has been a pastime of yours here for a while.

The OP is capable of weighing in on their position if I’ve somehow misrepresented it, but until that happpens, you may also be fabricating their position.

If you’re itchin’ to start another ‘moderator’ argument derail, we can move that over to another new thread. That would be respectful to the OP, correct?

You’re proving my point.

The issue isn’t whether the OP can clarify their stance. It’s that you, as a moderator, publicly assigned one that wasn’t stated. That’s not conversation, it’s narrative control. A moderator doesn’t get to invent context and then hide behind speculation when challenged.

And the “I know you are, what am I” deflection doesn’t change that. It’s another fabrication, a conclusion without any factual basis.

Also, let’s be clear: I’m not starting another moderator argument derail. I’m addressing the derail you created when you inserted a false claim about the OP. That’s where the thread went off track.

Pointing that out isn’t starting an argument. It’s defending the integrity of the discussion. If moderators want respect, they have to show it first through accuracy and restraint. Otherwise the forum stops being dialogue and becomes theater.

[canpakes]

Binger, you’ll probably survive the syndrome you claim to be experiencing, considering that ‘fabricating a position’ for others has been a pastime of yours here for a while.

The OP is capable of weighing in on their position if I’ve somehow misrepresented it, but until that happpens, you may also be fabricating their position.

If you’re itchin’ to start another ‘moderator’ argument derail, we can move that over to another new thread. That would be respectful to the OP, correct?

You’re proving my point.

The issue isn’t whether the OP can clarify their stance. It’s that you, as a moderator, publicly assigned one that wasn’t stated. That’s not conversation, it’s narrative control. A moderator doesn’t get to invent context and then hide behind speculation when challenged.

And the “I know you are, what am I” deflection doesn’t change that. It’s another fabrication, a conclusion without any factual basis.

Also, let’s be clear: I’m not starting another moderator argument derail. I’m addressing the derail you created when you inserted a false claim about the OP. That’s where the thread went off track.

Pointing that out isn’t starting an argument. It’s defending the integrity of the discussion. If moderators want respect, they have to show it first through accuracy and restraint. Otherwise the forum stops being dialogue and becomes theater.

There has been no false claim made about the OP.

You’ve tried this line of argument before and had to retract your assumption. You are obviously free to try to pursue this new attempt. Or keep ranting about mods. Whatever you need.

[Whiskey]

You’re proving my point.

The issue isn’t whether the OP can clarify their stance. It’s that you, as a moderator, publicly assigned one that wasn’t stated. That’s not conversation, it’s narrative control. A moderator doesn’t get to invent context and then hide behind speculation when challenged.

And the “I know you are, what am I” deflection doesn’t change that. It’s another fabrication, a conclusion without any factual basis.

Also, let’s be clear: I’m not starting another moderator argument derail. I’m addressing the derail you created when you inserted a false claim about the OP. That’s where the thread went off track.

Pointing that out isn’t starting an argument. It’s defending the integrity of the discussion. If moderators want respect, they have to show it first through accuracy and restraint. Otherwise the forum stops being dialogue and becomes theater.

There has been no false claim made about the OP.

You’ve tried this line of argument before and had to retract your assumption. You are obviously free to try to pursue this new attempt. Or keep ranting about mods. Whatever you need.

You’ve just stacked one fabrication on top of another.

Claiming the OP “presumably” holds a position that was never stated is, by definition, a false claim. That’s not interpretation, it’s invention. The record shows it plainly.

And this bit about me having “tried this line of argument before” and “having to retract my assumption” is another unsubstantiated assertion. I haven’t retracted anything because there was nothing to retract. I didn’t make an assumption here — you did. You assigned motive and position to someone who never stated it. That’s the fabrication, and this is you fabricating again to defend it.

This isn’t a “line of argument.” It’s a statement of fact. I’m not ranting about mods. I’m addressing a non-factual statement made by a moderator, and the pattern of deflection that follows.

The derail didn’t start with me pointing it out. It started with the false premise you inserted into the discussion. Accuracy and impartiality aren’t optional for moderators. They’re the bare minimum.

[Hound of Heaven]

There has been no false claim made about the OP.

You're a liar!

I asked AI if my OP suggested i believe there should be an absolute and total ban on gender affirming care, as you suggest I believe, and once again AI proves you to be a lying idiot!

I posted an image on the AI thread to show you what AI thinks about your lying tendencies.

[canpakes]

I’m not ranting about mods. I’m addressing a non-factual statement made by a moderator, and the pattern of deflection that follows.

If the discussion isn’t about mods, then why are you always inserting ‘moderator’ into the conversation?

Claiming the OP “presumably” holds a position that was never stated is, by definition, a false claim. That’s not interpretation, it’s invention. The record shows it plainly.

Oh, that ship sailed a long time ago, sometime around Hound’s second post in this thread:

“Let’s reiterate the facts so we can all grasp what a cult ideology like progressivism compels individuals to accept. GadiSCAMton holds the view that the actions of the far right, such as performing electroshock therapy on gay individuals at BYU, are wrong. However, he simultaneously subscribes to an ideology that deems it acceptable for progressive doctors to remove healthy breast tissue from a child, simply because the procedure is conducted by a doctor aligned with his cult beliefs.”

For credibility’s sake, why not be consistent?

I haven’t retracted anything because there was nothing to retract. I didn’t make an assumption here — you did. You assigned motive and position to someone who never stated it. That’s the fabrication, and this is you fabricating again to defend it.

You memory is just not kicking in -

viewtopic.php?p=2909996#p2909996

[canpakes]

There has been no false claim made about the OP.

You're a liar!

I asked AI if my OP suggested i believe there should be an absolute and total ban on gender affirming care, as you suggest I believe, and once again AI proves you to be a lying idiot!

I posted an image on the AI thread to show you what AI thinks about your lying tendencies.

You should correct me, then. Otherwise it can be reasonably concluded that you prefer ‘an absolute and total ban on gender affirming care’ for minors, given your first couple of posts.

It’s a simple question.

[Chap]

You're a liar!

I asked AI if my OP suggested i believe there should be an absolute and total ban on gender affirming care, as you suggest I believe, and once again AI proves you to be a lying idiot!

I posted an image on the AI thread to show you what AI thinks about your lying tendencies.

What the heck?

The man cites an AI app as a discussion-ending authority? Like "I asked my Dad, and he says"?

This is sad, and just a bit scary too ...

By the way: AI doesn't have opinions. It just churns out text in approximate imitation of what some of the people whose text it was trained on might have said in response to whatever prompt HoH gave it.

[Whiskey]

I’m not ranting about mods. I’m addressing a non-factual statement made by a moderator, and the pattern of deflection that follows.

If the discussion isn’t about mods, then why are you always inserting ‘moderator’ into the conversation?

Claiming the OP “presumably” holds a position that was never stated is, by definition, a false claim. That’s not interpretation, it’s invention. The record shows it plainly.

Oh, that ship sailed a long time ago, sometime around Hound’s second post in this thread:

“Let’s reiterate the facts so we can all grasp what a cult ideology like progressivism compels individuals to accept. GadiSCAMton holds the view that the actions of the far right, such as performing electroshock therapy on gay individuals at BYU, are wrong. However, he simultaneously subscribes to an ideology that deems it acceptable for progressive doctors to remove healthy breast tissue from a child, simply because the procedure is conducted by a doctor aligned with his cult beliefs.”

For credibility’s sake, why not be consistent?

I haven’t retracted anything because there was nothing to retract. I didn’t make an assumption here — you did. You assigned motive and position to someone who never stated it. That’s the fabrication, and this is you fabricating again to defend it.

You memory is just not kicking in -

viewtopic.php?p=2909996#p2909996

You’re referencing that split thread where the same thing happened. You made a false accusation that posters here were supporting child sex trafficking, and when it collapsed under its own weight, you split the thread instead of owning it.

That’s not discussion. That’s damage control.

It’s the same pattern here: make a false claim, defend it with fabrication, and when challenged, shift the focus or rewrite the record. Quoting another post doesn’t make your claim about the OP true. It’s retroactive justification, not evidence.

At least Shades has given you a pass to antagonize and mess with one or more posters, so technically you’re within the lines on that. But it still wrecks trust. When moderators play both sides of the line, it stops being conversation and starts being control.