I think you're reaching for outrage. I don't see anywhere in this comment's ancestry where anyone said anything resembling that.

That’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.

I 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?

I have no idea what thread you’re reading. Nothing about my post was confusing. I asked OP if they really thought calling homosexuality a mental disorder isn’t a slur in response to “the slur doesn’t make 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.

I notice you also sidestepped the question and continue to act confused though. I’ve spent more time on the topic than I should have, you’re either gaslighting or just unwilling to engage in actual conversation.

I believe the intent was thus: “Aye, that makes sense (not the [reauthorization of] slurs, but the explanation). Thanks.”

This 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

Or, 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.