this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
193 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30525 readers
2511 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 (R) 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?

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] QueenHawlSera@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

Still not a trans person

[–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 46 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I just sent this to their contact us page.

This article https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/07/gop-lawmaker-arrested-after-allegedly-having-with-middle-schooler-in-a-classroom/ Titled as "allegedly having sex with middle schooler" is trash rape culture wording. You cannot "have sex" with a child. That is rape. Period, Your readers expect better than to white wash crimes against children like this. Statutory rape is rape. Sex with a child is rape. There is no consent, and thus, no obligation for you to sugar coat article wording like this. Please do better.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 hours ago

I sent a message through their contact page as well. Thank you. I hope they respond appropriately.

I’m surprised they allowed this to be published as is considering the source.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They forget the part where you need to be filthy rich to get away with this.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Those troubled teen places

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 70 points 8 hours ago (7 children)

“Having sex”? There’s no “having ses” with a middle schooler. Its rape. He allegedly raped a child in a classroom.

Why do reporters nearly always defend these men with their word choices?

[–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 20 points 6 hours ago

Same reason they constantly describe Epstein victims with the oxymoronic term "underage women."

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

When it comes to reporting, they always want to go with what is verifiable, and accurate. That is why they always use phrasing like "alleged", "have sex".

The legal definition of "rape" varies quite wildly from region to region, and many things the average person would obviously consider rape, may not be in the legal definition, opening up news media and/or the reporter directly to potential legal trouble. For instance in some areas, "rape" requires vaginal penetration by a penis... So legally, a man cannot be "raped". So a report that a woman raped a man there, would technically be inaccurate and potentially defamatory.

It's much easier to just use generic terms and allegations when reporting, especially if it's not just a local media organization where differing laws for other regions are a factor. Even in situations where the laws aren't likely to be different... sex with a middle schooler is almost surely statutory rape regardless of the area. But standardizing around general statements is the best option to avoid legal issues, even if those aren't likely to be successful, they cost money to defend.

[–] seaplant@slrpnk.net 1 points 29 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago)

If that's their excuse it's pretty lame, it isn't hard to stick to what is verifiable and accurate without implying this 14 year old could consent.

The headline is a statement about what was alleged. It's quick and easy to verify that the allegation included Pritt sticking his penis in her mouth (the full affidavit is here). I think that meets the common understanding of 'rape,' it does meet the federal uniform crime reporting definition of rape, and it would be 2nd degree felony sexual assault in WV law.

Even if the specifics were harder to verify and the reporter was looking for a broader term than 'rape,' something like 'sexually abused' would be much more accurate than 'had sex with.'

[–] Barbarossa@piefed.ca 4 points 4 hours ago

I’m gonna be devils advocate, and agree with them not using rape in their title wording. Instead it should have highlighted that he coerced and groomed her. I say this because it more accurately describes the situation, per the article this was the purpose of their meetings rather than him forcing himself upon her. It also highlights the danger kids are exposed to on platforms like Roblox and social media

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 23 points 7 hours ago

Why do reporters nearly always defend these men with their word choices?

Rape culture.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 hours ago

Why do reporters nearly always defend these men with their word choices?

Same reason they don't talk about climate change during periods of record heat, or mega wildfire's, many people tune out

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If the say rape, the half of the country who voted for Trump immediately tune out. They cannot abide the cognitive dissonance. The rest of us already know the scale of the problem within the GOP. Journalists have to censor the word at this point so it fits within the overton window.

[–] Aedis@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

The article is from lgbtqnation, half the country already tuned it out just by seeing the source.

I don't think they are catering to that other half with this title. But if they were, they really shouldn't.

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

We're all pissed off but moral purity is not going to dig us out of this quagmire. The journalists are choosing their words for a reason. Ask them why instead of declaring their motives from within an angry online mob.

[–] Angular@crazypeople.online 3 points 6 hours ago

Rapists protecting rapists.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

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?

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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!

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 0 points 1 hour ago

grew out of it

Ah, looked like that briefly, but no. Just a fluke.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 1 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] luxadazy@lemmy.zip 39 points 8 hours ago

raping* you cannot have consensual sex with a 13yo.

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 22 points 8 hours ago

Oh would you look at that? Once again it's not a trans person, gay person or a drag queen.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Pedocon theory is a theory like gravity at this point.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago

We have quite a bit of evidence supporting the hypothesis by now. And more keeps stacking up day by day it seems.

[–] mako@lemmy.today 15 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

“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.”

Too bad he's not president. Those allegations would only increase his popularity, apparently.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 4 points 6 hours ago

DEMONRATS are just ANGRY he's not One of THEM now! FREE PRITT! He did NOTHING wrong!

-Republicans!

[–] aarch0x40@piefed.social 12 points 8 hours ago

Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the [Republicans more aligned with his personal interests]

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

There are many times I wish people would resist arrest, this is one of those times

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Man, thats why you gotta watch these kids when they're on games like Roblox. Pedos are always lurking.

[–] TheGoldenV@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

5’3” damn little rascals