What could possibly be “life saving”? On the scale of things, it’s a relatively moderate Islamic country so the best you’re going to get is if you’re gay and keep it quiet, no one is really going to bother you.
“The majority decided it. That’s not censorship.”
“The law decided it. That’s not censorship.”
“The users decided it. That’s not censorship.”
“You were just scared your neighbors would kill you, so you didn’t say anything. That’s not censorship.”
I’m having trouble drawing lines.
I’m not opposed to all censorship. I’m just opposed to refusing to acknowledge it for what it is.
If you have your comment flagged by a couple of people, and removed, that is censorship. Plain and simple.
Seems unlikely, not suprising it got flagged to death, however it's there for anyone with ShowDead enabled to read.
I was responding to one speculation, with another, to show that the parent speculation — that censorship of LGBT information would lead to more death by denying sexually active people in the LGBT community with information on STI prevention drugs — was over simplifying the factors involved, to present their speculation as a matter of fact.
If my comment — which I disclosed as mere speculation — is to be censored on those grounds, the parent comment should definitely have been.
I'm still not sold on the notion that limiting public infomation reduces the incidence of gay sex in a society; the Victorians famously did that and ended up with Polari, rent boys, Green Carnations, and generally no end of coded communication.
It made the puritans feel better but did little good otherwise.
Regardless, censorship is not the path to a healthy society and should be rejected on principle.
If a society is looking to decrease STI infection rates I don't see why they'd limit focus to LGBT material and expect any kind of useful result.
When AIDs first appeared Australia made public health announcements addressing all forms of sex as AIDs wasn't limit to male-to-male sexual transmission either, that was merely the demographic pool that STI first appeared in.
But as you point out, STIs aren’t confined to any one group, so focusing exclusively on MSM activity would be a mistake.
With respect to HIV, its prevalence among MSM is 20 to 30 times higher than in the general population.
In 2022, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continued to experience significantly higher rates of STIs that non-Indigenous Australians.
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are diagnosed with chlamydia two times more frequently than non-Indigenous people. For gonorrhoea and syphilis, the rate is more than five times as high.
This all points to the need for better community outreach programs to better inform specific communities, etc.
I know you were implying the opposite, but how many suicides are you going to prevent by making Malaysia’s rate (6/100k) similar to the US (14/100k)?
These are generalized rates, of course, but in point of fact, your claim is not substantiated by any real data.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajcp.12553
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362...
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/#support-youth
There's plenty more if you care to just Google it.
The rest of your comment is ridiculous because obviously there is more than one contributing factor to suicide. Including (perhaps) latitude.
I’ve read about it in depth.
Encouraging people to be LGBT has resulted in massive increases in number of people claiming to be trans, for example. Assuming they have the “best” case scenario of an affirming home, apparently 14% attempt suicide, according to your third link.
Now let me ask you, how many people have we killed by “affirming” these things to the point that it’s actually cool to be trans in most schools?
We’re driving up the denominator on the highest risk category for suicide while pretending that that very thing will reduce suicide.
>in point of fact, your claim is not substantiated by any real data.
I have provided data. You just avoided commenting on it entirely and responded with a theoretical, opinionated "question". The reason is obvious to any reader: You're wrong. Otherwise, where is your data!?
Anyways... science aside... it's not even like this is a controversial idea. You're actually challenging the idea that people feel better about their lives when they feel supported. Really? What a weird thing to suggest. There's a reason people like you get downvoted (or "censored" as you put it). It's because you don't engage honestly. You aren't driven by science but ideology and no amount of data will change your mind.
Either you think that the majority of the population in Malaysia or the US identify identify as LGBT+ or you're really struggling with basic statistics and reasoning.
> prevent by making Malaysia’s rate (6/100k) similar to the US (14/100k)?
Presumably the idea would be to reduce it to some number lower than 6. Or do you believe the majority of people in the US are killing themselves because of "Awareness and acceptance on LGBT matters"?
If the idea is to reduce it below 6 by preventing a few suicides per year (which is not likely), how confident are you that destroying the culture of the nation in the process will not cause the number to rise to 14?