the_post_of_tom_joad [any, any]

It’s happening! He stabbed DDD into his chest!

(He didn’t)

Thank you! I understand it’s focused on one person, but ya get what i mean? It invites misunderstanding.

It’s not wrong to phrase it this way, it’s technically accurate to say" Lone LBGTQ+ Democrat". However it’s definitely clunky and unnecessarily confusing.

Reading the title immediately raises the question in the reader: "If only one LGBTQ+dem, how many other Dems?

If his sexuality is the point, then his party affiliation isn’t. If his party is the point, his sexuality isn’t.

The Advocate speaks to issues in the LBGT+community, therefore speaking to his sexuality is relevant. Titles are supposed to summarize the article with more information as you read. If the article, brings up information it does not then answer, why mention it if not to confuse? Reading the title could easily cause the reader to mistake “Gay Democrat is lone LBGT+ vote” as the lone Dem vote.

WAS this the Intent? Well that’s harder to parse.

Really, I’m not like, saying the advocate is trash or w/e, but i AM trying to take into consideration how often our news sources have biases (deliberate or internal) towards the 2 parties. MSNBC et al are known to push for the Democrats, FOX n ONANN etc for the Repubs. No arfument there, right?

Further, if "The Advocate"does in fact has a pro-Dem bias, I’m not even claiming they’re morally wrong for doing so! But! As someone who personally feels the DNC is not a party for the people of the US, and sees often the cover they get from the aforementioned media who do, i’m very sensitive to and always looking out for examples of wording that give the Ds cover for doing its constituents dirty like they did with this vote.

80 other Democrats (thanks again btw) sold us out; and that information matters. Leaving that out is an extremely important omission, and for a magazine that frequently interviews Democratic representatives, it’s an omission i cannot believe is unintentional.

This seems phrased in such a way as to obfuscate the democrats’ vote on NDAA25, which i can’t seem to dig up rn

Its (windows)10’oclock. Do you recall where your screenshots are?

Probably try reading the missive before commenting cuz your take is catastrophically wrong and bad

I’m trying to figure out who the fuck might read this “polywork” bullshit and think to themselves: “yes. Both this take and this person are both sane and good”

It’s really hard for me to understand why you stopped learning and started talking. You’re supposed to keep doing both! instead of ending your education at high school and repeating things the rest of us have dismissed along with our pimples as ideas for children.

If 80 senators decide the vote should be anonymous then it could be, right? Normally i don’t think that’d be possible but for something AIPAC hold so dear i could see it

More evidence of Dem voters getting radicalized by their “unbiased” media. these cats are the ones trudging blindly behind their party’s frog-march rightward

I saw a post ‘kindly fall in line’ (speaking to a harris dissenter) on the lib-verse the other day and i thought they were lampooning libs at first but after several re-reads they were for real.

They can’t hear themselves. I thought liberals mostly just held the door open for fascists but that oft-used quote about bleeding is true, huh.

Fuck me

Winnin piracy just like they winnin the war on drugs

Uh oh didn’t you read whyesseffs rant yesterday you rascal? She coming for ya

I couldn’t find what you meant. Can you expand a bit?

IANAL but i am wondering if Disney is somehow letting this case go as a backdoor way to legitimize arbitration agreements.

Like, i just can’t see Disney not knowing this is the wrong case to push the legitimacy of an arbitration agreement. But if this case somehow legitimized through whachacallit… precedent… that an arbitration agreement, while binding in a primary sense, is not binding for every Disney product, wouldn’t Disney (and really every company that uses binding arbitration as part of using their product) consider that a win?

Because as i understand it, arbitration agreements as a requirement to use a service is still an untested legal grey area. Anything legitimizing them at all would be a win… Right? Againn ianal

On the other hand if there’s gonna be a challenge to the legality of arbitration agreements this is a strong place to start from.

Isn’t this just a long way to paraphrase Hilary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables”?

I don’t know… I’m sure racism plays a part but to open with

You just need to know these basic facts: In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 percent of the U.S. population.In 2024, white people account for about 58 percent of the U.S. population.

And then bro just follows up this correlation with… with a venting of personal feelings and rampant generalizations.

Did it become trash when i wasnt looking? Cuz i actually thought the intercept was better than this.

Damn, i had no idea she was this off her rocker.

I dig their cracks but i don’t follow the drama. Care to offer a primer on the soap opera?