This seems phrased in such a way as to obfuscate the democrats’ vote on NDAA25, which i can’t seem to dig up rn
It would be convenient if every article just included the vote counts, but I don’t think it’s particularly malicious that this one doesn’t, it’s mostly focused on calling out the one democrat
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.
It’s a weird stereotype that many gay white men are white first, men second, gay never in terms of their politics, but it keeps happening.
Painful. Do they hope that it will all be fine as long as they are the only freak? Idk, once everyone else is gone, they’re coming for you, my dude.
mayo pete ass assimilationist motherfucker, absolutely rancid vibes. hope the staircase gets him next
Riders are a bitch.
Do we have to tap the sign about trolley problems?
Does it bother you the coverage is “queer liberal does something wrong” when Republicans poisoned this major funding bull?
Does it bother you the coverage is “queer liberal does something wrong” when Republicans poisoned this major funding bull?
no not really, I think it’s completely fair to single someone like this out 🤷
