Utah just banned transitioning youth. Google is your friend, no need to guess.
The Utah law "prohibits health care providers from providing hormonal transgender treatments to minors and those not diagnosed with gender dysphoria".[1]
That's not the same thing at all.
[1]: https://healthnews.com/news/utah-limits-access-to-gender-aff...
That’s simply a single edge jump from “Utah GOP” to GOP.
> It's not useful, to anyone
What's not useful to everyone is acting like you don't read the news, can't read the news, or in the event that someone points out something in the news that you didn't, that you somehow cannot be availed of that knowledge in a way that doesn't render the argument moot. It's really stupid when you think about it that way.
Plus, aren't we supposed to be making the effort of understanding each other here. Sitting in ignorance to insist you can't think of a single example isn't really making that effort.
> It's almost like it's used to preemptively set up a fight, with responses similar to yours, like "Well, you're not paying attention" or "How could you not know?".
A stage was set where people can easily be placed into a box, created by an intentional lack of clarity. They can then be easily attack for not seeing things "as clearly" as they should. It's not possible for anything positive to come out of an exchange built in that context. By that, it's not useful, unless your goal is actually to create a negative exchange.
I'll also claim to know the next part of the pattern, but I don't think you can complete the pattern, somewhere like this, and it definitely involves misplaced assumptions.
> we are supposed to try to make an effort to understand each other.
My first comment was asking for clarification, so discussion could be had. You made no efforts, and resisted, until now.
> I will repeat my point that when discussing a particular element of the news
As my first comment stated, the problem is that no particular element was discussed. I suggest re-reading this thread.
The rest of your post is a textbook example of gaslighting, so I'm choosing to remove myself from this thread now. But, I sincerely wish the best for you.
No change in my tone nor my point.
>My first comment was asking for clarification, so discussion could be had. You made no efforts, and resisted, until now.
I literally offered an example that fit.
>As my first comment stated, the problem is that no particular element was discussed. I suggest re-reading this thread.
Yawn.
>The rest of your post is a textbook example of gaslighting, so I'm choosing to remove myself from this thread now. But, I sincerely wish the best for you.
Be gaslight, then. It's all projection from you anyway.
It seems that any criticism of the republican leadership results in a horde of bigots mass flagging and downvotes which then prevents me from responding to attacks and responses.
Dealing with the bullshit and falsehoods always takes a lot more time than it takes to discredit facts, and HN’s approach with flagging does not help.
As a matter of fact, I had a comment where i paraphrased Popper almost word for word regarding the paradox of tolerance, and then quoted Trump saying he wants to outlaw trans people, and i got flagged.
It took for @dang to come and unflag me.