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

politics

19104 readers
3108 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
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
132
New York Times Writer Has Unsurprising Advice For Kamala Harris: Target Trans People (www.erininthemorning.com)
submitted 3 months ago by gAlienLifeform to c/politics
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

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovingHippieCat 109 points 3 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.

[–] spamfajitas 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] LovingHippieCat 8 points 3 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 3 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!

[–] spamfajitas 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 3 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.

[–] ccunning 25 points 3 months ago

Fuck the New York Times

Yes! But fuck Sulzberger in particular…

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

[–] Zombiepirate 67 points 3 months ago

I'm so fuckin' sick of reactionaries acting like they're the reasonable ones.

Every little miniscule step in the right direction is impeded by loud, braying assholes trying to drag us back into the wastelands to prove how manly they are.

[–] jordanlund 59 points 3 months ago

My current news feed for anyone who needs to understand why trans issues are important or why we ban transphobic content:

[–] Boddhisatva 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I had to look up the phrase "Brahmin left" as I'd never heard it before. It was apparently coined by an economist, Thomas Piketty, in a paper on wealth inequality. In it, among other ideas, he used this phrase to describe a shift in voting patterns where highly educated people, who used to vote more to the right, were now voting more left in western societies. It seems an odd choice to me as Brahmin is the name of the highest ranking caste in India's caste structure. That basically included the wealthy and the powerful and to me doesn't conjure up associations with high education. The American Enterprise Institute, a right leaning think tank, says the phrase characterizes "Western left parties increasingly bereft of working-class voters and increasingly dominated by highly educated voters and elites."

I gather that the phrase has been adopted by Republicans as a slur against the left in their efforts to characterize themselves as the party of workers.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is no party of workers. If there were, we would have single payer health care, mandatory 2-4 weeks paid vacation per year, mandatory paid sick leave, parental leave, 25$ minimum wage, among other benefits.

We do not have a workers party

[–] ganksy 6 points 3 months ago

We don't have a dedicated workers party but we do have an anti-workers party. One party has worked towards all of those things you listed in some shape or form.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Sounds like the term I've heard a lot: "Champagne socialist".

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Can we use the phrase "focus on" instead of "target", or something that sounds less like attacking when minority groups are targeted all the time in bad ways. This is not the first article that has phrased it this way.

[–] LovingHippieCat 19 points 3 months ago

But it is targeting. Even you just said that minority groups are being targeted. That should be reflected in headlines. Now using the terms "slammed" or "blasted" or whatever is pointless. But target is an accurate word to use.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Did you read the text of the article? The writer is calling for Harris to take anti-trans positions

[–] gAlienLifeform 9 points 3 months ago

Point of clarification - the NYT writer is calling for Harris to take anti-trans positions, Erin Reed (aka ErinInTheMorning) is pointing out how that's bad policy and bad politics

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago

But then they wouldn’t get confused rage clicks

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

David Leonhardt is their "just the facts" COVID guy who throughout most of the pandemic just kept repeatedly saying COVID is no big deal so stop worrying.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2022/01/27/the-nyts-polarizing-pandemic-pundit-00003059

https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/covid-race-david-leonhardt-new-york-times-retraction.html

His whole deal is telling people that the status quo is fine so stop trying to change anything.