this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
132 points (90.7% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2294 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
132
New York Times Writer Has Unsurprising Advice For Kamala Harris: Target Trans People (www.erininthemorning.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Notably, Leonhardt makes a weak case in his advice for Vice President Harris that many will view as unsurprising. The link chosen to support his claim that Democrats are "well to the public’s left" on transgender issues merely directs readers to another New York Times article by Pamela Paul, which has already been fact-checked and found to contain false and misleading information. The Pamela Paul story falls far short of supporting the idea that the public is significantly opposed to transgender issues.

While some polls show opposition to aspects like sports participation, more recent surveys indicate that the public is against bans on gender-affirming care and does not view transgender issues as particularly salient or worth legislating over. Gallup, Navigator, and the LA Times have all released polls within the last three months showing that the American public views trans issues as a major distraction, opposes forced outing policies, and rejects bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In Gallup’s case, multiple ways of asking about gender-affirming care bans did not affect the result.

If Vice President Harris wishes to follow advice that will win her elections, listening to Leonhardt may be misguided. Many politicians have previously attempted to run on anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ platforms with little success. For instance, Moms for Liberty and Project 1776, organizations promoting fiercely anti-LGBTQ+ and conservative policies, lost 70% of their races in the 2023 school board elections. Similar forces saw anti-trans politicians defeated in Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and many other swing states.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240724114903/https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-york-times-writer-has-unsurprising

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 109 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Fuck the New York Times. They have routinely platformed bigots and claimed "well we have to represent both sides." My rights are not something to be debated. Harris has been far more supportive of trans folk than I realized, I don't think she would do this. But with this article and the insistent need for the New York Times to platform transphobic assholes, I think I'm finally going to talk my mother into getting rid of her subscription.

If anyone wants to learn more about Harris and her not so mixed background on trans rights, here's a great article my partner found recently and shared with me. I'm using a Tumblr link to get around the medium paywall and I don't know how to get around the paywall otherwise. Here's that direct medium link if anyone can get around it.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thank you so much for this, I can now bookmark that one to use in the future.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the archived article cuts off at the same place as the paywalled article.

I was, however, able to read it in full by copying your link to the original into a simple plain text converter (in this case I used txtify.it). Thanks for the article recommendation btw— I learned a lot!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I saw that with one of the more recent archived versions and went back to 2020 to find one that worked. Did it still happen with the one I linked to?

Definitely keeping your solution saved, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I was sure it happened to the one you linked to, but in trying to replicate it now, I’m not getting the same result, so it must have been user error on my part. My apologies. The site was kinda buggy trying to load on mobile and you’re probably right— I’m guessing I clicked on something that sent me to a more recently archived version.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago

Fuck the New York Times

Yes! But fuck Sulzberger in particular…

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Here's an archived version of that medium link that doesn't cut off: https://archive.is/FNqUx (and that loads super fast)