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?
108 Comments
Zephorah@discuss.online · 176 pts · 11d
“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?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 60 pts · 11d
Rape culture.
GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 50 pts · 11d
Same reason they constantly describe Epstein victims with the oxymoronic term "underage women."
Angular@crazypeople.online · 13 pts · 11d
Rapists protecting rapists.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 11d
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 · 5 pts · 11d
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 · 17 pts · 11d
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 · 3 pts · 11d
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.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 11d
I think it’s quite odd of you to imply journalists don’t make mistakes with wording.
“Allegedly raped” or “allegedly sexually assaulted” is right there.
Barbarossa@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 11d
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 · 14 pts · 11d
The biggest issue here is that they used the word "sex" to describe what happened to a child.
The devil doesn't need more advocates.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 10d
velma@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 10d
They were meeting so the lawmaker could rape the student.
I’m not going to be passive about this. Children can’t have sex.
Defending this wording says way more about you than me.
joe@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 10d
Does "have sex" imply consent?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 10d
Yes.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults. It's rape.
joe@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 10d
So "consensual sex" is a redundant phrase?
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 10d
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 10d
I'm not the one defending describing rape of a child as sex.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 10d
velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 10d
Well, well. Look at that. They did the responsible thing and updated the title.
Are you confused about how this guy abused this child now?
LordMayor@piefed.social · 10 pts · 10d
You want pedantry?
Statutory rape is rape. Full stop.
He allegedly raped a middle schooler who he groomed. Let’s normalize using that in headlines to stress the seriousness and awfulness of the act.
RedAggroBest@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 10d
Rape is also a crime that someone must be convicted for. Imagine the worst case scenario where they call him out as a rapist, he's found not guilty with all charges dropped. Now there's a VERY solid case of libel and an endless stream of conservative lawyers ready to try and take down a website they already hate.
Like, it's irritating but surely we all see how a news source would rather be safe than so-sorry-we're-laying-everyone-off? Can we not see that journalists have to be very careful not open themselves up to litigation by people with way more money and power than them?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 10d
They used "allegedly having sex". They can just as easily use "allegedly raped".
Your argument has already fallen apart anyway. The site updated the title to "GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom".
People spoke up and they changed it. How about we don't try to quiet people down when we're rightfuly calling for language to be updated to reflect reality?
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 10d
Maliciousness is a major component of defamation. It would be easy to prove they published information before a verdict, but the motivation to publish would have to be malicious. Absent some statement by the publisher that they would do anything to destroy that person they despise, just covering a legitimate news story in a normal way wouldn't be considered malicious.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 1 pts · 11d
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.
Zephorah@discuss.online · 7 pts · 11d
That is what the word allegedly is for. With a child it can never be alleged sex, only alleged rape or alleged sexual assault.
The child cannot consent. Not by legal definition. Therefore, more false and misleading reporting occurs. Under the implication that a child “had sex” with an adult.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 11d
It’s not verifiable or accurate that a child is having sex. It’s rape, statutory rape, or sexual assault.
seaplant@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 11d
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.' And it's important to be accurate with this because describing sexual violence as a type of sex instead of a type of violence makes it seem like a normal thing for people to want to do.
plz1@sh.itjust.works · 116 pts · 11d
I just sent this to their contact us page.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 51 pts · 11d
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.
StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 10d
They changed it to 'allegedly sexually abusing.'
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 10d
Good. Maybe the commenters in here arguing that it’s more accurate to describe this crime as consensual sex can shove it now.
Edit: ugh, they changed the title but kept “sex” in the body of the article.
luxadazy@lemmy.zip · 73 pts · 11d
raping* you cannot have consensual sex with a 13yo.
aesthelete@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 10d
"having sex with"
Nope, he raped a child.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 13 pts · 10d
Yeah, WTF?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 10d
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.
SaraTonin@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 10d
At least they didn’t go with the newest “ugh” term - “underage woman”. If she’s underage, she’s not a woman
axx@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 10d
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.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10d
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 automatically 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.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 10d
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!
velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 10d
They also neglected to update the body of the article. It still describes this encounter as sex between the two.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 10d
Slutty middle schoolers tempting innocent MAGAs.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10d
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 10d
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.
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 11d
Oh would you look at that? Once again it's not a trans person, gay person or a drag queen.
aarch0x40@piefed.social · 33 pts · 11d
Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the [Republicans more aligned with his personal interests]
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 5 pts · 11d
That’s cause GOP stands for Gathering of Pedophiles.
QueenHawlSera@piefed.social · 28 pts · 11d
Still not a trans person
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 10d
Still not a drag queen
axx@slrpnk.net · 13 pts · 10d
Still a Republican.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 10d
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.
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10d
Also still not an atheist?
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au · 24 pts · 11d
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 · 8 pts · 11d
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 · 2 pts · 11d
Ah, looked like that briefly, but no. Just a fluke.
Breezy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11d
Dont worry, as an adult no matter what there is always someone willing to fuck you. Probably.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11d
First, in my anecdotal knowledge, religious is more likely than non-religious. Second, they just don't talk about it.
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au · 4 pts · 11d
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.
mako@lemmy.today · 21 pts · 11d
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 10d
"Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
Joins the Republican party and rapes kids.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 11d
They forget the part where you need to be filthy rich to get away with this.
hperrin@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 11d
Or a priest.
BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11d
Those troubled teen places
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 10d
You're a billion too short, Skippy.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 10d
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.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 10d
Dems are complicit controlled opposition
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 10d
I used to think this was an exaggeration. I am no longer that naive.
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10d
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?
Manjushri@piefed.social · 16 pts · 10d
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.
Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 11d
There are many times I wish people would resist arrest, this is one of those times
habitualcynic@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 10d
That’s called rape and pedophilia. Coward ass journalists today.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 11d
Pedocon theory is a theory like gravity at this point.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 4 pts · 11d
We have quite a bit of evidence supporting the hypothesis by now. And more keeps stacking up day by day it seems.
jordanlund@lemmy.world MOD · 9 pts · 10d
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.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 10d
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:
Make that change, and I'll happily update it. I just want to shield myself and future posters from arbitrary and capricious moderators.
jordanlund@lemmy.world MOD · 2 pts · 9d
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.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9d
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.
jordanlund@lemmy.world MOD · 1 pts · 9d
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."
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 9d
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?
jordanlund@lemmy.world MOD · 1 pts · 9d
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.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 9d
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
BigMacHole@thelemmy.club · 8 pts · 11d
DEMONRATS are just ANGRY he's not One of THEM now! FREE PRITT! He did NOTHING wrong!
-Republicans!
TheGoldenV@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 11d
5’3” damn little rascals
FrowingFostek@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 11d
Man, thats why you gotta watch these kids when they're on games like Roblox. Pedos are always lurking.
BadmanDan@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 10d
“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.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 10d
GOP = Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10d
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 than the plebiscite.
Basically, the culture stuff serves as a distraction while they loot and pillage the coffers.
BadmanDan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 7d
Obamacare originally had a public option and didn’t have the votes. Also, what stopped Bernie from proposing Medicare For All for the last 10 years, he’s a literal Senator genius.
The “party” did not choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The black voters did, the same voters he failed to reach out to, this is a demo Hillary and Biden aggressively targeted.
You sound like a MAGAT, everything isn’t rigged against you and you’re not always right you pretentious spoiled fuck.
mcv@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 10d
Unless you want racism or pedophilia, I guess. Then the Dems have clearly moved in the wrong direction for this guy.
MrSulu@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 10d
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.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10d
It is unless you are rich. If you are, you get elected president.
rottenmummy@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 10d
Is being a pedo mandatory to join GOP?
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10d
In this case it definitely wasn't the quiet one.
Christ, what a piece of crap human being.