I think I see what you’ve been trying to communicate now.

as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.

Well the problem is you didn’t say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:

my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.

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.

I know what she said

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?

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)

I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance

I’m glad to hear that.

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?

It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion

This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)

Are there any designated out-of-band channels to communicate in case the server goes down?

sharing a lot of Taliban ideology

That seems like a bit of a stretch.

occasionally when an instance is full of toxic trolls

Isn’t that exactly what we’re talking about? I get constant lemmy.ml lunatics jumping on threads, name calling, talking nonsense, posturing, telling me to “go away” (this is the Fediverse looney, you’re only viewing my comment by your own consent), etc.

I’ve already user-blocked hexbear and lemmygrad, lemmy.ml is the next candidate for me.

Yeah the tankies seem like a crazy bunch. Literally.

The only thing to do is to disengage. Just ignore/defederate/whatever lemmy.ml.

So it’s rather pointless sitting for example in /c/linux@some.random.other.instance.world where there’s nobody to discuss anything with.

On the other hand, if you don’t participate outside of lemmy.ml then nothing outside grows and you just give more power to lemmy.ml.

> gay man goes to Qatar
> goes on Grindr in Qatar
> gets arrested and abused by Qatari authorities
> pikachu-shocked.jpg

Can’t seem to login using Jerboa any more.

more equivalent legally

This is a straw man. The pope’s decision is about a religious issue, not a legal issue.

😉

You think this is a joke? That guy you look up to is part of the reason the British people are going hungry.

Fuck you and your “king”.

Benefits scrounger.

They

anger against “them”

LOL oh the irony

Us decent people

ROFL

Us decent people are, by our nature, not angry and hateful enough

You think a lot of yourself don’t you.

It’s reddit with one letter changed

Copyright doesn’t apply to names. Trademarks apply to names.

Reddit will eventually notice and will shut us down because we literally are infringing their copyright

How does feddit.uk infringe Reddit’s copyright?