United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
I'm confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?
Because – as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.
From one side of their mouth they're saying nothing has changed, from the other they are using this as vindication for new anti-trans moves.
Now that I've again answered you, for the final time, are you going to address what I've been saying?
It feels like you're just arguing in bad faith for the sake of arguing, and I can't be bothered with that.
I think I see what you've been trying to communicate now.
Well the problem is you didn't say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:
Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody "saying one thing and doing another". The critical part is that with "the SC's verdict not actually changing anything" you're presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.
My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.
In that case I'm sorry you failed to make the link.
LOL the failure isn't mine