Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

This is the kind of comment that really can't be responded to without drawing accusations of trolling. But I'll risk it:

I'm genuinely curious what you mean? You're implying the existence of a conspiracy of some sort, but I checked and the document you mention is a real one and... not particularly controversial? It's here, for those curious: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/disparities/mai/pdf/LGBTQ_I...

Basically from my perspective as one not steeped in the relevant conspiracy lore, this seems pretty boring and sincere. I'd assume that the "intentions" behind the document were exactly what it claims in its text: it's a somewhat boring and unimaginative guide for schools to use when implementing inclusivity programs for queer youth, something that almost all schools are doing in some form at this point.

Basically, spill it: what are you accusing the CDC of here?

View on HN

I believe OP was questioning the intentions of the trump-aligned laywers who sued for access to records regarding the LGBTQ document.

I don't think GP was a troll implying the document itself was a problem. I think they were implying that the request for the document or information about its creation is the issue. At last that's not my reading.

The document's mere existence or quotes take from it, likely out of context, could easily be used as proof by various groups as some sort of agenda or other problematic behavior on the part of the CDC. There are plenty of groups out there happy to gin up any "evidence" they can, no matter how flimsy, to "prove" their world view and can do a lot of damage in the process. And if it's "official government evidence" that's "being hidden" all the better.

A simple example we've seen: focusing and promoting the damage caused by vaccines as proof all vaccines are bad and no one should ever be forced to have one. If a vaccine had a 20% side effect rate there are plenty of people who would go nuts for "official evidence" of lots of side effects. Even if that side effect was a headache in the 24 after injection and the vaccine was a one time cure for all disease.

Unfortunately there's a lot of bad faith acting out there, and many of those same people seem willing to harass the hell out of the people they view as evil.

>A simple example we've seen: focusing and promoting the damage caused by vaccines as proof all vaccines are bad and no one should ever be forced to have one. If a vaccine had a 20% side effect rate there are plenty of people who would go nuts for "official evidence" of lots of side effects. Even if that side effect was a headache in the 24 after injection and the vaccine was a one time cure for all disease.

If the side effects were truly negligible then people would not be trying to shout down and condescend to anyone who asks if there are side effects. People did experience side effects, some of those up to and including sudden death that very day, and yet people were blacklisted and banned for talking about it and demanding their bodily autonomy.

Furthermore, if the vaccines were effective, necessary, and safe, you wouldn't have to mandate their adoption and simultaneously say the unvaxxed are a threat to the vaxxed (yes, they really said that in the MSM). People would be fighting to get theirs first. That isn't exactly what happened, now is it?

>Unfortunately there's a lot of bad faith acting out there, and many of those same people seem willing to harass the hell out of the people they view as evil.

There called liberals these days /s.

Seriously though, people have a right to know what public servants are up to, and to criticize those people. If you can't handle that then you probably shouldn't be making policy or even working in government.

I believe "they" in this case is the America First org.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com