4 ms·
I believe the author worked at Facebook in the past. The "fifty years" bit is likely a reference to that company's recent policy change that explicitly re-autho
by drewbug01 2y ago
I believe the author worked at Facebook in the past. The "fifty years" bit is likely a reference to that company's recent policy change that explicitly re-authorizes the use of what are rightly considered slurs - even if they were common sentiment to express publicly fifty-some years ago.
- singleshot_ 2y agoAye, that makes sense (not the slurs, but the explanation). Thanks.
- tw04 2y ago[flagged]
- lgats 2y agoI think singleshot_ is saying the slurs do not make sense but drewbug01's explanation of the article's meaning is clear
- tw04 2y ago[flagged]
- peeters 2y agoI think you're reaching for outrage. I don't see anywhere in this comment's ancestry where anyone said anything resembling that.
- tw04 2y agoThat’s literally what the new Facebook policy is that she’s referring to in the article… it was previously banned, zuck has decided that it’s now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged behavior.
- peeters 2y agoI understand your objection to the policy, I just don't understand where in this thread you latched onto anything objectionable. At most the OP said the slurs don't make sense (really they didn't even say that, they just clarified the subject of what they were saying made sense). Are you saying the slurs DO make sense? Or is it possible you added some words to what the OP actually said and then objected to that?
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoThis is why people are strongly disagreeing with you. Apologies in advance for copy and pasting a meme, but I think it applies directly to the way you’re attempting to shape this discussion: > Twitter is the only place where well articulated sentences get misinterpreted. > You can say “I like pancakes” and somebody will say “So you hate waffles?” > No bitch, that’s a whole new sentence wtf is you talkin bout
- spoctrial 2y agoOr, you know, maybe your interpretation of what they said is incorrect? It's quite obvious to me that the original poster was confused about what the end of the article meant and trying to communicate that the explanation they got made sense. It's also quite obvious to me that they don't think the updated policy about using slurs being okay makes sense. > Then proceeded to get downvoted to oblivion because there’s apparently a large subset of folks who think calling homosexuality a mental disorder is a perfectly normal thing to do. If you are receving massive downvotes, instead of insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, maybe you can try to critically analyze your interpretation and see if there is another way to interpret what was said, instead of doubling down and believing that HN is the last bastion of LGBTQ hate.
- vasparshin 2y agoHi @lgats I would really like to speak to you about fccid.io. Could you DM me?
- golergka 2y agoIt’s an awful position. People who say things like that are assholes that I never want to associate with. And giant social media companies should not censor speech like this.