this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
321 points (98.2% liked)

politics

31455 readers
2239 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/40818945

25 Dec 2025 18:45 GMT

Backlash is growing after the New York Post described prominent children's content creator Ms Rachel as a "controversial YouTube star" following her appointment to New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's inaugural committee, a label critics say reflects a broader effort to stigmatise pro-Palestine speech.

Parents and activists online pushed back sharply, arguing that opposing the killing of children is a basic humanitarian stance, not a controversial opinion. At the same time, Mamdani has drawn support from progressives for assembling an inauguration slate that openly reflects the coalition that powered his election victory.

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 112 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Opposing the killing of children is apparently more controversial than being supportive of child rapists.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Anything that opposes the will of Israel is antisemitic and wrong. /s

[–] sepi@piefed.social 5 points 9 months ago

The pendulum is gonna swing

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

A the pedo Fuhrer is child rapist and a baby murderer so the cult supports child murder and rape

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 83 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Mr. Rogers would oppose the killing of Palestinian children.

And the New York Post would condemn him for it.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Fox News had already went on the record calling him "evil" so New York Post doing the same is probably not far-fetched.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 4 points 9 months ago

Jesus would probably not be fine with it too. They'd send him to a Konzentrationslager.

[–] BoycottTwitter@lemmy.zip 42 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What do you expect? NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch the same person who owns Fox "News". I recommend never giving that rag a penny. Share links to more reputable news sources, if you must share a NY Post link use the archive link and always use an ad blocker.

[–] pete_link@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Before giving me a lecture, how about looking at the source? It's not the New York Post, its the Middle East Eye, a very reputable and non- MSM source. Knee-jerk responses are really not helpful.

[–] BoycottTwitter@lemmy.zip 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I must not have made myself clear. I wasn't talking about Middle East Eye, I was talking about NY Post. I'm advising people avoid linking to or sharing links to NY Post so it doesn't get ad revenue.

I'm basically acknowledging the issue mentioned in the article and saying it's par for the course for NY Post.

[–] pete_link@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 9 months ago

The Post is a shit rag

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

S-S-SLAMMED!!

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

"Controversial" here seems like a basic statement of fact. One might think that she ought not to be controversial, but she is.

[–] mrbeano@lemmy.zip 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For some people, feeding the hungry, or healing the sick, or even outright "not bombing kids" is controversial.

WTF, humanity

[–] sausager@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

And those people, believe it or not, are Christians

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 16 points 9 months ago

Most scientists are controversial amongst lunatics, doesn't mean we need to mention that. At this point, Zionists have proven themselves to be loony enough to disregard and any attempts at normalising their worldview should be met with pushback.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is like letting bigots define sexuality or gender as "political", thus putting them in a category of something that is debatable, and of something that is "problematic" to discuss at times of their choosing. And just like a person's right to be who they are is not "political", neither is Ms Rachel "controversial" just because she is the target of a smear campaign.

[–] JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Of course human rights are political. We as a society decide certain things are too important to be taken away, and that's good. That's politics. If trans rights weren't political, then trans people like our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ (he/him) would be fucked. We wouldn't be able to agree as a collective on the right way to treat trans people. Politics are absolutely essential to trans safety, and anyone trying to take politics out of gender is playing a dangerous game with other people's lives

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

No, it is about ethics and moral

[–] blackwateropeth@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Shit, some people are into being slammed then smeared ;)

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 4 points 9 months ago

The failing New York Post