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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 175 points 3 months ago (42 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?

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago* (2 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (29 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (24 children)

    I’m gonna be devils advocate, and agree with them not using rape in their title wording.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 3 months ago (24 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (22 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Does "have sex" imply consent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    Yes.

    Children cannot consent to sex with adults. It's rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    So "consensual sex" is a redundant phrase?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    Yes, it would be considered a redundant phase. Sex without consent is rape.

    Children cannot consent to sex with adults.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago* (16 children)

    I am pretty sure you're wrong about this but I'm unsure where you're pulling this definition from, so maybe that would help sort it out.

    In 1530, could a 14 year old "have sex"? Are you leaning on morality to define sex this way, or legality?

    To be clear, this semantic argument feels much more like virtue signalling than anything else, but I'm open to be convinced it's more than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    You’re pretty sure I’m wrong, but you can’t figure out why. Just to be clear - you're pretty sure I'm wrong about children being unable to consent to sex with adults

    We’re not talking about 1530. We’re talking about right now. We’re talking about THIS case with THIS child that was raped by a lawmaker.

    I took issue with the author describing this abuse as “sex” when it is impossible for a child to consent to sex with an adult.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Please don't get me wrong, I do think using the word "rape" (when combined with the obligatory "allegedly") is a better title, and a better way to describe the situation, but I don't think using "have sex" is wrong or inaccurate, let alone defending anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (13 children)

    "Have sex" when describing rape is absolutely inaccurate and implies consent. It's part of our rape culture and how we excuse rape and pedophilia.

    I think it's telling that you came at me for defending this victim instead of any of the commenters here arguing that it's more accurate to describe this act of rape as sex with a child. Literally teamed up with someone calling me a "retard" for accurately calling this for what it is - rape of a child.

    Read the room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    What are you even talking about? I didn't "come at you" nor is your semantic argument "defending" anyone lol. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just virtue signalling. I think I'm about done with that now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

    Oh yeah, you're innocently just asking questions about whether children can consent to sex or not.

    You don't need to give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm fucking right:

    • Children cannot consent to sex with adults.

    • Sex without consent is rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Well, a quick look at a dictionary doesn't support this definition you're using, but it does maybe provide me a path to showing you where I'm coming from. The relevant definition I have here is "sexual intercourse". Are you saying that consent is implied in that definition? If yes, which word is providing that implication: "sexual" or "intercourse"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (9 children)

    I didn't quote a definition.

    I'm not going to get into a tit for tat back and forth on what defines rape and more specifically rape of a child with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I noticed. Maybe that would have been a good place to start?

    So, if you're not using the dictionary definition, which does not imply consent, why are you pretending it does imply consent? Better, what makes you feel justified in claiming someone is wrong for using a dictionary definition, instead of your seemingly made up personal definition?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    I'm not going to argue with you about sex without explicit consent. I'm not.

    Make sure you're getting consent from the people you sleep with moving forward. It's important.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    I was wondering how long it would take for you to imply disagreeing with you meant I was confused about consent. You did it everywhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    You're clearly confused about consent. A friendly reminder does no harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    At no time did I indicate I didn't understand consent. I only ever questioned your made up personal definition of sex. lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It's not my personal responsibility to teach you about consent and rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't recall asking you to. I'm not confident you'd even be up for the task, to be honest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.' 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.

  • source
  • parent