Is the New York Times now rethinking its stance on children and puberty blockers? They seem to be…

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from nytimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]alladd 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Now when people go "there's no proof they do this to kids" you can link to the NYT instead of like, the Daily Mail.

It'll still probably get you banned from any subreddit you bring it up in though.

[–]Adventurous_Ad6212 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Im banned permenantly on every account i make on reddit so meh.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

You weren't advocating hard enough for the trans babies, friend. Be better.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Trans babies deserve a future too!

[–]FlyingKangaroo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They will have a future, if afterlife exists.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I wonder if half the reason that the Daily Mail got away with articles like that, when pretty much any "reputable" publication would have been buried in hate and outrage by the TRAs, is specifically because it's the Daily Mail.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

People forget that it was a campaign by the Daily Mail, including a direct challenge to sue them for libel, that contributed heavily to getting the killers of Stephen Lawrence prosecuted and jailed.

I’m no fan of them, but they do have this habit of occasionally being on the right side when either everyone else is wrong or too chickenshit to stick their head above the parapet. That’s not to say that they haven’t done some heinous shit in the past, and columnists like Peter Hitchens are just massive twats.

[–]jet199 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

In think the thing the Mail does is they print everything whether it agrees with their agenda or not, which a lot of more respectable papers don't do. This is why they sometimes end up printing conflict medical research results on the same day.

I also wonder if Americans don't realise that the Mail is a solidly middle class paper with a big female and minority readership. Their moaning about immigration and campaigning against the Stephen Lawrence killers at the same time make sense when you realise their target audience is small business owners and housewives, not the working class. The last time I bought a hard copy of the Mail they literally had 3 puff pieces about immigrant businessmen in the middle pages. If you only see the cherrypicked reactionary stories the left take offence at or the internet viral weird stories then you would be really surprised at the content of the printed paper.

[–]Greykittymomma 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Just reading many of the articles from Daily Mail give me that sense. I judge articles based on the merit of the content included. I notice them pop up again and again with real news and people dismiss it because of the name at the top. Ridiculous. I even see things on Fox News that are reasonable from time to time but you can't really post those to folks without them thinking you ONLY read them.

Like hello, I read more than one source... We ARE on the INTERNET!

I used to watch RT on YT, oops I'm on a list 🤪

[–]alladd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean...I sort of dismiss them because of how ass ugly the site is, and all the terrible clickbait links, but I get what you mean.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

As I say, they have a big female readership which means lots of celeb stories one after another.

[–]alladd 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is sort of funny that every "female oriented" publication like HuffPo or Jezebel ends up being bolstered with scummy gossip about celebs. I guess it's what they want to read.

[–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's pretty much my impression, rag on them all you want for quality control (It's true, I've seen ridiculous typos and content copied from Wikipedia without attribution) or sensationalism, but in terms of bias, they are one of the best news sources around. They are equal opportunity sensationalists.