You must log in or # to comment.
They’re a “ghurl” when it’s an adult waitress serving folks at a restaurant in Tuscan, but the moment its the president of the united states sticking his finger into a 13 year old’s genitals, she’s a “young women”. Fucking pedophiles from top to bottom.
The media was the real villain all along.
Weird considering how often adult women are referred to as girls.
“Underage girls” would be technically redundant but in practice correct
Going out for drinks with the boys is almost always with adult men. A girls night out is often with adult women. We use boys and girls regularly to refer to adults depending on the context.
There’s also an entire genre of literature aimed at older children called young adult.
Some are trying to dodge legal action against them, others are owned.
Well, all of them are owned.
There are a few out there still on the right side of history. Never enough thought.
I don’t see how it’s possible to be on the right side and still not publish, often and explicitly, that the person who is president and leader of republicans is a demented rapist conman who ran a child sex trafficking ring, staged a violent coup attempt, and routinely steals taxpayer money for himself while promoting the murder of American citizens and regularly commits war crimes proudly.
NOT saying that - every day in every way possible seems like capitulation if not collaboration.
Edit: just to state the obvious I’m not a publisher and if I were I’d make no money probably.
Not everyone has the fortitude of an Iranian school kid.
What legal action does calling a child an underage woman prevent?
Everyone who calls out the current administration as pedophiles will get sued by the administration, and they have a lot of federal judges under their belt. Rather than get drawn out in to a lengthy legal battle. If they soften the wording, they lower the chances of being the initial targets.
Boys abused by female teachers: “first time?”
Media been minimizing crimes for years through the concept of “sensitive topics”. Many users are so used to them they even self-censor. There is no murder or rape in media nowadays, people are simply “unalived” or “having involuntary sex”.
Didn’t we already do this exact post like 2 or 3 weeks ago?
We need socialism
It is a really weird thing to say, and you can still find a lot of articles that use the term “underage women”. But, it’s not like articles that use that term are necessarily trying to apologize for Epstein or minimize what happened.
I think the problem is that they want to use the term “underage” because they want to clarify that what happened wasn’t legal. The proper term for an “underage woman” is a “girl”. But, unfortunately, “girl” is also used with adult women. So, saying “Trump had sex with some of the girls” doesn’t really clarify what happened. And, the term “underage girls” is also bad. That’s the kind of language you might find from someone like Megyn Kelly trying to draw a distinction between sex with an 8 year old vs. sex with a 15 year old.
But, it’s not like articles that use that term are necessarily trying to apologize for Epstein or minimize what happened.
That’s a subjective interpretation, and a valid one, I just disagree with it.
Whether or not they’re “trying” to is even sort of irrelevant - it does minimize it. My opinion is that they know very well that that language minimizes it.
I’m sure I can find you a bunch of articles where there’s no sign they’re trying to minimize what happened but they happen to use that term. I just think English is tricky. What term do you think they should be using?
It depends, but “girls 11-14” might be a start.
That doesn’t work when the details are fuzzy, for example, this paragraph:
House Democrats Wednesday released a small batch of emails that appear to suggest President Donald Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of underage women than he has acknowledged.
https://theweek.com/politics/house-democrats-release-epstein-emails-trump
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”. That suggests that the emails that were released referenced those specific ages, which they don’t.
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”.
You could say emails suggest Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged". You sure could. You sure should! It’s the truth! It’s recorded in many places, witnessed by many people!
You clearly have no idea how fact checking works in journalism. They couldn’t make that claim.
You clearly have no idea how fact checking works in journalism.
Yeah right. IF that was true (and let me be clear - you have no idea what the fuck I know about) then a “free press” has been neutralized by the destruction of language. That’s a pretty arguable point. But.
Complicity is not handing over lists of names for people to be sent to camps. (it is, but) Complicity is super-boring shit where you approve the most mealy-mouthed nothingburgers all day long. Corporate news sewers are failing us every day, in almost every article.
And this “OMG You Can’t Say That Because It’s Not KNOWN” is why everybody thinks that’s the case.
Have you listened to first hand testimony from the Trumpstein victims? Have you? Okay you haven’t but that’s fine because they don’t make it into the NYT and CBS news. If you ever do, though, what you’ll find is that evidence that can be used to convict in a court of law will never be printed in the news. You think that has to do with fact checking in journalism? Don’t be a fool.
Because trump and his friends that own all the media were the ones raping children
Is that why the media outlets that scream “orange man bad” all day long are also doing that damage control bullshit?
it doesn’t matter who’s in charge, the media is evil and you don’t hate them enough
When I lived in Australia, we had floods. The news kept using the term “inundated” so much we turned it into a drinking game.
“This place is inundated”, “That place has inundation”, “Were expecting here to be inundated”. And you’re thinking, “With what? Zombies? Donations? Locusts? Oooooh, rain water. Yeah, that’s called flooding, not inundating.”
It was so weird, but all the news outlets did it.
You were flooded with articles about inundation? I bet using that term resulted in a flood of comments on those news pages.
Better than the US media. “Australia SLAMMED by flood.” “Flood BLASTS Australia.”
Australia pegged without lube by brutal floods.
Wait…with or without consent?
It’s Australia. We always consent to a good, hard pegging.
Yes.
OMG so much better! Wow!
sexy
News media often have editorial requirements that ban themselves from using certain words. Sometimes it’s because the words are politically incorrect but other times it’s much more mysterious as to why they don’t use them.
When I worked for a newspaper we were asked by a campaigner not to use the phrase “committed suicide”, because it dated back to the days when suicide was a crime. We were asked to refer instead to someone having taken their own life. It made sense, so that’s what we did. You can call it “politically correct” I guess. I see it as just being sensitive to the feelings of people grieving for a loved one.
the words are politically incorrect
Ah yes, Republican projection strikes again.
Because the media is evil, the same people who helped jeffery do all that stuff are the same people who fund the media
Probably trying to minimize the possibility that the words “child rape” or “pedophile” will occur within screenshotting distance of an ad for kid swimsuits or something. Journalistic integrity isn’t brand friendly.
Now imagine that
(It’s a fucking tablet. In 2026. I can’t get over it)
I (American) remember visiting the UK for the first time when I was like 8. I remember thinking it odd that they referred to “car accidents” as “car crashes.”
They’re not all accidents.
Are you sure you’re not remembering watching Hot Fuzz
Reminder to watch that again, though it seems to be on at least a yearly viewing. I could do more but don’t want my gf to never suggest it, it’s always a treat when she wants to watch it too. Seriously one of the best movies of all time (though at my age that list grows but probably only 20-30 now I don’t keep track).
Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent is a confession and a revealing of the method
Yes. I don’t really look up to Chomsky anymore, but 70% of what he said are correct, the other 30% are genocide denialism and his shocking defense of Epstein even after the latter has been captured.
