Then its no longer the Women's Institute then. Might as well change the name to bigotry Institute.
post
I think upvotes are for the quality of the content in the post and comments are for sharing your opinion.
So, upvote when the post fits the purpose of the community, spurs discussion, and follows the rules.
Comment to tell people what you think about the content of the post.
If we downvoted every time there was horrible news we didn't agree with communities like news and politics would never receive a single upvote.
I think you're spot on yeah.
Content aggregators (where Digg, Reddit, and to a certain degree StumbleUpon were the obvious choices) generally use the upvote/downvote tooling to promote content that users think are worthy to be shared or should be seen more; same with comments if they add constructively to the discussion regardless of viewpoint.
The problem with using upvote and downvote style tools to express like and dislike means that you just end up with an echo chamber of "goodthink" and a community that circlejerks itself, where dissenting or controversial but possibly accurate comments and posts never see the light of day.
What a bunch of spineless cowards.
Kindly, check the origin of the policy. They've been letting trans women in for 50 years. They just made it official in 2015. This is in response to a very recent mass cultural kickback in the UK.
They face no real repercussion for stopping the long held tradition, and much from continuing. Bending the knee.
Ada will ban that nazi
We get it, you're a bigot. You don't need to keep reminding us.
3 day account to boot too.
Likely made for the sole purpose of trolling. Some people have nothing better to do with their lives.
You keep posting this same thing. So you're hateful and not creative. Tends to go hand in hand. But you simply responding, let's us know you're reading these comments. At least you're not using the clown emoji, guess you trumpettes are finally evolving.
The org wanted to retain trans women but the UK's court ruling made that a legal hazard? I'm not sure who would have standing to sue and over what exactly?

all 57 comments