Pritt was initially elected to the state House as a Democrat in 2022 but changed his political affiliation to Republican the year after. Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
State Republicans have filed numerous bills seeking to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender minors, ban trans student-athletes from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, and nullify cities’ non-discrimination ordinances.
In 2023, Pritt voted for a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. State Sen. Mike Azinger ® said that the bill was needed because gender is “self-evident” and that the bill was needed to stop doctors who want to “chop up a child,” even though gender affirming surgery is almost never performed on minors and the bill banned non-surgical interventions.
Why is it always the ones you most suspect?
FYI - A lot of the discussion here about the headline is now irrelevant that the source saw the light and corrected it:
“GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom”
OP - If you can update your headline to match, that would be great!
And, yes “having sex” in this context, is rape apology.
I’d gladly do so if you add an expressed permission in the rules to guaruntee that some other mod in the future doesn’t bjtch about making that sort of change (especially if this happens again to another article down the road). Add text to rule 1. Like add a rule 1a that says something like:
The original poster may update their Lemmy post’s titles to match an updated article title ONLY IF the origional source has updated the article’s title subsequent to the original posting on Lemmy.
Make that change, and I’ll happily update it. I just want to shield myself and future posters from arbitrary and capricious moderators.
We require submissions match the source headline.
The title in the original source changed, it’s on you to make sure your title stays updated.
If you’re in reading comments, you can double check and fix the title at the same time.
The title in the original source changed, it’s on you to make sure your title stays updated.
If you’re in reading comments, you can double check and fix the title at the same time.
Is that explicit in the rules? My point is that, while YOU or the current mod team in this exact moment might allow for the change in this specific instance, it would be helpful to memorialize that if/when this happens again in the future.
It IS explicit in the rules, first rule in fact:
“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.”
I followed the rules exactly. The title of my post was an exact match for the article at the time of posting. After reader complaints, the news source decided to change it after the post on Lemmy was made. My point is that it would be helpful to have an adendum (that 1a bit above) that shields people for when that happens. Like, what if they change the title, it gets updated on Lemmy, then it changes again?
At the time of posting, and after a bunch of complaints I’m sure, based on the discussion here ALONE, the original source editorially corrected the headline.
You should have the common sense to do the same, if you don’t, I can just remove the post.
I’m not arguing about removing or not removing the post. Hell, I am not arguing about wether to change the title. I already changed it. I am raising the concern about future instances. This has the potential for repeatability, and mods cycle in and out. That makes the instant title change concern or statement from you (one mod) an inherently subjective application
Not from the US, so checked and 8th Grade is 13-14 years old. This is statutory rape here in the UK, and hopefully in the US also.
It is unless you are rich. If you are, you get elected president.
Is being a pedo mandatory to join GOP?
That’s called rape and pedophilia. Coward ass journalists today.
PEDO PARTY
If Dems were good at messaging, which they aren’t, they’d blast this everywhere imaginable to make the name really stick.
If Republicans can make the public believe Haitian immigrants were cooking and eating people’s pets then Dems can make people believe something that’s pretty obvious at this point.
Pritt was initially elected to the state House as a Democrat in 2022 but changed his political affiliation to Republican the year after. Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
So much to unpack here. Originally a Dem, but switched to Rep without realizing how far they are from the Republican party “our parents grew up with”? Or perhaps his pedophilia and instinct to project onto others made him realize the Republicans are a better fit for him?
Dems are complicit controlled opposition
I used to think this was an exaggeration. I am no longer that naive.
In this case it definitely wasn’t the quiet one.
Christ, what a piece of crap human being.
"Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
Joins the Republican party and rapes kids.
“While every person is entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process under the law, charges involving the exploitation and abuse of children strike at the core of the public trust,” Holstein said. “The people of his district deserve representation that is beyond reproach, and these allegations make it impossible for him to effectively serve.”
Yes, he should resign from office for the good of the party. It’s very hard to bury this kind of thing while the rapist is still in office.
Also, yet another one for the pile:
Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, and Enablers Pt. 61 - 1500 and counting.
“having sex with”
Nope, he raped a child.
They always do that!!! It’s got to be some legal thing like it’s alleged and not proven to be rape?
I don’t know.
At least they didn’t go with the newest “ugh” term - “underage woman”. If she’s underage, she’s not a woman
Yeah, WTF?
There’s people unironically defending the use of the phrase “having sex with a middle schooler” in this very thread.
This shit is so common is nauseating.
Yeah, change the title @Sunflier@lemmy.world that’s wrong. The article says “allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom”.
Edit: just saw that was the original article title. Utter crap on the part of lgbtqnation, but i think you also should’ve done better.
Edit: just saw that was the original article title. Utter crap on the part of lgbtqnation, but i think you also should’ve done better.
Lemmy’s politics rules say to use the article title. When Lemmy scraped the website for a title, it was blank. So, I copy + pasted the title that was there at the time I made the post. I don’t want to fuck with it, especially since the title was as I origionally posted (not going to risk a rule violation). Also, since Lemmy didn’t scrape it, I figure it won’t update to any new title.
Also also, I don’t remember every article that I’ve copy pasted because Lemmy couldn’t scrape the title. I am not going to take on the burden of following along and refreshing to see if the articles’ titles have changed. Not only is my memory not good enough to recall years of postings, but I also need to sleep.
It was good you followed the rules here. Enough people were able to reach out to the publication and get the title and story updated with better wording!
They also neglected to update the body of the article. It still describes this encounter as sex between the two.
Slutty middle schoolers tempting innocent MAGAs.
“Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
Not the glaze the Democrats, but I’m assuming this guy is Gen X or elder Millennial. All the Dems have done since the 80s/90s have done is move left on social services/regulation (slowly) and become more inclusive.
Today’s Dems are objectively better than the era his parents grew up with.
All the Dems have done since the 80s/90s have done is move left on social services/regulation (slowly) and become more inclusive.
Since Regan (compounded by Citizens United), Dems have been diet Republicans: still siding with Republicans when its something the donors want, but more inclusive on cultural issues. Doubt me? Why did Obama model the heath-insurance reforms after Romney-care (a long sitting Republican) instead of Bernie’s idea of Medicare For All? Why did the party go with Hillary instead of Sanders? Why did Harris spend the entire campaign reassuring the donors rather than getting the base to turn out? Money carries more weight that the plebiscite.
Basically, the culture stuff serves as a distraction while they loot and pillage the coffers.
GOP = Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Still not a trans person
Still not a drag queen
Also still not an atheist?
Still a Republican.
Still a MAGA.
There are no Republicans anymore, that was just their larval stage before they morphed into their final form - MAGA. They’re all MAGA now. Republicans should only be referred to in a historical, scholarly context.
They forget the part where you need to be filthy rich to get away with this.
Or a priest.
Those troubled teen places
DEMONRATS are just ANGRY he’s not One of THEM now! FREE PRITT! He did NOTHING wrong!
-Republicans!
Why is every conservative a pedophile?
I remember the conservative men I knew in childhood, and they were all woke by modern standards. Some beat their wives bloody, one spent a friend’s college fund on sex workers (jokes on him; last I heard she was the best in the business and the rest of us got student debt), several were known rapists, my aunts talked about office parties being ‘dangerous’, and marital rape was just kind of an assumption.
But so few of them were pedophiles. Like I completely avoided being raped as a child. What happened? Was I just an unfuckable kid? Were all my friends whose families weren’t religious just unfuckable kids?
I’m sorry you had to find out this way, but yes, you were an extremely unfuckable kid. I hacked into their mailing lists, meeting minutes, and records, and you would not believe how much time they spent talking about you. One of them said he was feeling very desperate once, and had an opportunity with you, but before he could go through with it he realized he was better than this and it turned his life around and fixed his low self-esteem. The meeting minutes made a point of highlighting that when he was discussing his rock-bottom moment, that he may stoop so low as to assaulting you, the assembled people audibly said “eww” and gasped. When he said he couldn’t bring himself to do it, everyone applauded.
Sorry champ. But the good news is you grew out of it, like that classic kid’s story, The Unfuckable Duckling!
grew out of it
Ah, looked like that briefly, but no. Just a fluke.
Dont worry, as an adult no matter what there is always someone willing to fuck you. Probably.
Were all my friends whose families weren’t religious just unfuckable kids?
First, in my anecdotal knowledge, religious is more likely than non-religious. Second, they just don’t talk about it.
No, like, I heard about it when it happened.
And yeah. Obviously the kids from religious families all got raped. I thought that was the point.
Pedocon theory is a theory like gravity at this point.
We have quite a bit of evidence supporting the hypothesis by now. And more keeps stacking up day by day it seems.
