Liberal ‘Tolerance’ a Complete Joke

[Ric Flair]

25 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Wow....I'd like to know how much knowledge you really have on the subject because you are coming off as ignorant

 

Most of the psychological community is in agreement with me. The PC crowd is not. So who is “ignorant?”

[Nebfanatic]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Most of the psychological community is in agreement with me. The PC crowd is not. So who is “ignorant?”

I doubt 'most' of the psycological community is in agreement with you. Anyone even making conclusions on this subject can't be too sure given the research available. That said I would defer to the people going through these experience their whole over your biased 5 minute research project.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Nebfanatic

[knapplc]

Posts intentionally inflammatory thread crying about intolerance.

 

Thread is tolerated by both Mods & the people the OP intolerantly labels "liberal."

 

Sucks when your victimhood is disproved by your own claim of victimhood.

[knapplc]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I regularly post the facts and evidence that support my opinions. In the case I highlighted, I quoted numerous psychiatrists, mental health professionals, and the DSM, which is the definitive source on the topic of what is mental illness. It didn’t matter. If one of the mods doesn’t like a post, or is concerned it may hurt someone’s feelings, the fact it is true, factual, and supported by evidence is trumped by the fact that it may be hurtful. 

 

NEWSFLASH: The truth often hurts feelings. That doesn’t change the fact it’s the truth.

 

What didn't matter?  That people don't see your point of view?  Is that what you think "intolerance" is, when people don't conform to your worldview? 

 

This seems like begging for an excuse to be an ass to people. "The truth often hurts feelings."  Yes, it does, but that doesn't give a person license to be a jerk.  There are ways to discuss unpopular truths without being inflammatory, condescending, or an asshat. 

[Ric Flair]

 

25 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I doubt 'most' of the psycological community is in agreement with you. Anyone even making conclusions on this subject can't be too sure given the research available. That said I would defer to the people going through these experience their whole over your biased 5 minute research project.

 

I posted multiple links, including those to the APA’s own research and conclusions. It doesn’t get more definitive than that.

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

What didn't matter?  That people don't see your point of view?  Is that what you think "intolerance" is, when people don't conform to your worldview? 

 

This seems like begging for an excuse to be an ass to people. "The truth often hurts feelings."  Yes, it does, but that doesn't give a person license to be a jerk.  There are ways to discuss unpopular truths without being inflammatory, condescending, or an asshat. 

 

I posted my opinions, backed by facts and evidence. Those opinions are unpopular, especially here on the Husker version of ahuffPo, but based on facts and evidence. And unpopular opinions are apparently not tolerated here. #SAD

[funhusker]

Here's the deal: "capitalism" is intolerant (*).  Hear me out.

 

We like to cry that Laura Ingrahm can't say what she feels.  Alex Jones is being silenced.  Some reporter from a "left" publisher is pro-life and has an "in your face" way of saying it and is fired.  We can yell "censorship" all we want, but you know what matters? Customers.

 

If I'm a manager at Walmart and my cashier is handing out Target coupons; well they will be dealt with.  If I'm a salesman for a Ford dealership and talk about how GM has much better value, I'm being dealt with.   These people get paid for their opinions, but there is a limit.  I don't care where you lay on the political spectrum there is eventually a line between making your readers/listeners "think" and just plain "pissing them off."  This isn't "intolerant", it's "business".

 

(*) People will be in charge of themselves, this can be a good thing.  But to be a successful individual, you have to care about what others think.  Fact of life, better get used to it....

[funhusker]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I posted my opinions, backed by facts and evidence. Those opinions are unpopular, especially here on the Husker version of ahuffPo, but based on facts and evidence. And unpopular opinions are apparently not tolerated here. #SAD

When you start appreciating being a "part" of this forum rather than an "opponent" you may realize discussion (and even minority opinion) is appreciated.

Edited April 8, 2018 by funhusker

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I posted my opinions, backed by facts and evidence. Those opinions are unpopular, especially here on the Husker version of ahuffPo, but based on facts and evidence. And unpopular opinions are apparently not tolerated here. #SAD

 

So your problem isn't that your opinions aren't tolerated, it's that you don't understand what "tolerated" means.

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I posted my opinions, backed by facts and evidence. Those opinions are unpopular, especially here on the Husker version of ahuffPo, but based on facts and evidence. And unpopular opinions are apparently not tolerated here. #SAD

This post  basically shows the problem you are having on the site. 

 

Hint, it’s not your opinions. 

[Moiraine]

44 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Posts intentionally inflammatory thread crying about intolerance.

 

Thread is tolerated by both Mods & the people the OP intolerantly labels "liberal."

 

Sucks when your victimhood is disproved by your own claim of victimhood.

 

 

Hey don't group me with these people. I intolerantly reported the OP for calling all the mods liberals.

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

 

I posted multiple links, including those to the APA’s own research and conclusions. It doesn’t get more definitive than that.

So to add to the "facts" ... the WHO (World Health Organization) evaluates the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) and makes changes when its deemed necessary. The last update was in 1990 (I think that's when this transgender number was added) and they are updating the entire book again this year.  Funny thing, they have submitted that transgender should be taken out of the classification of mental disease.  It's been through multiple committees and been approved, so I expect that you'll see this go away this year.

So @Ric Flair when the APA guidelines change as planned, will that change your opinion of these folks and where they belong in society?  

 

The funny part is, they bucketed transgender into the mental disease group because of the "if you have it and it makes you distressed" definition.  After doing clinical trials and looking at data they found out that it wasn't the transgender part that distressed them, it was the social rejection and violence - NOT being transgendered.  

 

So expect the new codes to include gender incongruence in sexual diagnosis, not mental disorders.  And it will be viewed as a medical and biological disorder.  Exactly like homosexuality has moved and "hysteria" (often used for labelling women) and then have both fallen off all together.  The reason gender incongruence will still be included will be so that these folks can get the medical help they need.  And not just for surgical sex changes and hormones (I"m assuming that will be what you question immediately).

So in a nutshell - the society around these folks are what is really a mental illness - not them.  

 

I anticipate that your opinion will stay the same, similar to the thoughts you've expressed about abortions.  Even though that is a medically approved procedure you think it's indefensible and should be curbed.  So that medical coding procedure, and all the opinions and data hasn't made you feel differently about it.  I'd expect when this changes you will hold your position as it too seems deeper than a definition in a billing book or a medical procedure to you.  

Edited April 8, 2018 by NM11046

[Danny Bateman]

This thread is a pretty solid counterpoint to the argument made in the National Review article about this Williamson guy in the OP.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Clifford Franklin

[Enhance]

@Ric Flair, let's go ahead and set this record straight once and for all.

 

First, and most importantly, the APA removed gender identity disorder (GID) as a listed mental disorder in 2012. They publish the DSM. They replaced it with something new called "gender dysphoria" to help diagnose and treat people who are stressed by the gender mismatch between their identity and body. The intent with this move was to destigmatize transgenders, help spur better health care and recognize that the mismatch between someone's birth gender and identity may not be pathological. The cornerstone for your argument is essentially a misunderstanding of the DSM and the APA's position, along with the position of other leading health care professionals.

 

Second, in the early release of the World Health Organization's ICD-11, they've moved gender identity disorders from the classification of 'mental and behavioral disorders' to a new category called 'gender incongruence.'

 

Third, you were suspended for two reasons last month:

1) You were trolling a thread

2) You explicitly referred to transgenders as mentally ill while ignoring the highly controversial and potentially offensive nature of doing so. You presented your opinion from a position of intolerance. The way you posted your opinion was interpreted as a violation of board rule number five.

 

Finally, I have personally told you once before that there is a place on this board in the Woodshed for airing grievances about warnings and suspensions. Consider this the last time we will politely ask to not pollute the board or a thread with misgivings about suspensions.

[Enhance]

Due to the divisive intent and nature of the OP, this thread has been locked.