You are the OP. You should know that the source is Erin, not the Advocate.

More: You are welcome to check links yourself before adding to the steaming pile of misinformation.

False (for now). Please, please, please don’t repeat crap until you’ve looked for yourself! Everything about the Trump admin is horrific – there’s no need to spread falsehoods here.

Copying my comment from another thread:

• Old news: they removed TQ+ from LGBTQ+ – that happened in February 2025.
• As of today, they still have the ‘B’. See for yourself:
• https://www.nps.gov/ston/
• https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/education/new-index.htm

The source wrote the piece well and linked to archive.ph so people can see the history. They have a snapshot from July 10th with ‘bisexual’ erased, but as of July 11th, it is back. As I write, the text they cite for the MAIN page (not History) reads:

Before the 1960s, almost everything about living authentically as a lesbian, a bisexual person or a gay man was illegal.

The History page (current | Jun 4 archive } April 19 archive uses LGB) is obliquely worded and has been for months, saying:

Through the 1960s almost everything about living openly as a member of the Stonewall comunity was a violation of law

It still omits transgendered as it has since the February ‘purge’.

This is not true (yet). I see all the news aggregators are repeating it, though.

Copying a comment I made on a cross post:

• Old news: they removed TQ+ from LGBTQ+ – that happened in February 2025.
• As of today, they still have the ‘B’. See for yourself:
• https://www.nps.gov/ston/
• https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/education/new-index.htm

The source for this article is here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/after-trans-people-trump-now-erasing

They wrote that piece well and linked to archive.ph so people can see the history. They have a snapshot from July 10th with ‘bisexual’ erased, but as of July 11th, it is back. As I write, the text they cite for the MAIN page (not History) reads:

Before the 1960s, almost everything about living authentically as a lesbian, a bisexual person or a gay man was illegal.

The History page (current | Jun 4 archive } April 19 archive uses LGB) is obliquely worded and has been for months, saying:

Through the 1960s almost everything about living openly as a member of the Stonewall comunity was a violation of law

It still omits transgendered as it has since the February ‘purge’.

Again and again, when the Times attempts its false balance — trying to make Republicans sound less unhinged than they actually are — it results in bad journalism. It is the same problem social media platforms have encountered in moderation: removing misinformation and deplatforming bad actors means removing and deplatforming more Republicans. Eventually, using the excuse of “fairness,” social media companies gave up.

The Verge also cites this Politico article on how the right actively worked to discredit Claudine Gay. From Politico:

When you put those three elements together — narrative, financial and political pressure — and you squeeze hard enough, you see the results that we got today, which was the resignation of America’s most powerful academic leader.

Lordy, how I wish truth and logic was sufficient to fight lies and crazy.

I’m doing better without him, so don’t worry too much about it. Old women tend to live alone simply because men die younger, so it’s no biggie if some of us start that trend a bit early.

I remember an old guy who really wanted to remarry when his wife died, courted and married someone new, and then expected her to do all the household chores because that’s what women do. She was aghast. He hadn’t given any indication that what he wanted was a free maid while wooing her, and she backed out of the whole thing immediately – much happier to be on her own than take on his expectations.

The reddit hivemind gets triggered by the very idea of cheating. As far as I know, there was no cheating in my marriage and eventual divorce, but it didn’t matter to me if he cheated or not. It mattered to him that I didn’t cheat, so I didn’t. From my point of view, I’d have a problem if he was spending all his free time with someone else instead of helping with the house, chores, relationship, and so on, but random sex was fine by me – as long as it didn’t result in pregnancy or become a full-blown relationship.

Years ago I read some paper about how humans have two primary and competing reproductive strategies: monogamy versus promiscuouness. It theorized that cultures tend to codify monogamy as the standard to follow because its proponents get very hostile to the promiscuous whereas the promiscuous do not much care what the monogamous do.

Agreed!

I might think it is in my self interest to lie, cheat and steal, but if I do that, my community and my reputation are worsened, and I may have a harder time getting a better position in a crappier world.

If instead I think it in my self interest to volunteer at the local food bank, I might see my community and reputation improved, and by demonstrating a commitment to community, perhaps I will get a better job offer.

More basically: civilization has figured out that fair trade benefits both the farmer who needs tools and the blacksmith who needs food. It is in everyones’ self-interest to support things like: rule of law, commerce, and education.

He’d tell you because I was crazy.

I’d say it was because he wanted us to both move in with his (wonderful and supportive) family.

I was crazy, but not THAT crazy.

We had been living far away from his family, but he’d landed a fantastic job in their home town. Before the move, his mother started calling me and telling me that if I wanted to live in her house, I’d have to be respectful, and not go out drinking all night and coming home drunk – something I’d never done or conceived of doing – or what chores I would have, or how loud I could be, and when we would eat, and so on. I told him that I could not live 24/7 with his mom. I said I was moving to MY mother’s and when he got us a place of our own, I would join him. He didn’t. We divorced.

The divorce was fairly amicable. That was all about 30 years ago and I never remarried. I did shack up with a wonderful man for about 20 years, but I eventually kicked him out because he’d shrink into the shadows when I most needed support and I was tired of feeling emotionally devastated when I reaching out for succor and instead finding a void. I explained that I’d rather know that no one is there to help if I’m flailing about than to have someone I trusted stand by and do nothing. Yeah, I’m bitter about that one. I still love the guy, but sheesh.

Nah, gotta got vinyl because cassettes deteriorate just sitting in their cases while vinyl stays pristine … until you actually play it, anyway – but if you want to store an audio recording for longevity, press a gold version of a vinyl album.

When I was in high school, I was very anti-authority and swore all the time to be “against the man”. When I started working in day care I had to cut out all swearing all the time because it was too automatic to ONLY stop in front of kids. When I got a real job, I continued my no-swearing bend as a general rule because – at least until you get to know the people around you – people will treat you with more respect if you don’t sound like a foul mouthed low life.

Swearing all the time for no reason is a very low-rent affect. Letting out a rare swear will add considerable emphasis when your peers know it is not your normal behavior. Always swear when you hurt yourself. It helps.

I thought I was going to rely to this question, but you covered it so perfectly that I’ve nothing useful to add. Thank you for putting in the time.

Does this archive version render any better for you? https://archive.ph/xIOUo

Is it any good? I used to like Lidl and Aldi breads before COVID, when you could slice it right there. They stopped that, and so I no longer had a reason to drive 5-10 miles out of my way to go there. I’d go back for a good sauerkraut, though.

I generally agree with you, but it is so complicated. I read a piece in The Nation a few years ago (written 2019) and whenever I see a question like this I have to dig it up. Sex workers in Spain applied to become a union (OTRAS, for short, full name basically means “the other women") and were approved in August 2018. Here are a few snippets:

After OTRAS was legalized, its two dozen or so members—who include women and men, both trans and cisgender—quickly found themselves engulfed in a national controversy. Prominent activists, academics, and media personalities swarmed social media under the hashtag #SoyAbolicionista (“I’m an Abolitionist”) to denounce what they saw as basic exploitation masquerading as the service economy. The union’s opponents argue that in a patriarchal society, women can’t be consenting parties in a paid sexual act born of financial necessity. They liken sex work to slavery, hence their name: “abolitionists.”

OTRAS calls this abolitionist opposition “the industry.” “They live really well off of their discussions, books, workshops, conferences, without ever including sex workers,” Necro says. “We’re not allowed to attend the feminist conventions.” OTRAS accuses “the industry” and the government—the two loudest arms of the abolitionist camp—of racism and classism, and is irked by their claims to feminism. “A government that refuses to guarantee the rights of the most vulnerable, poorest women with the highest number of immigrants? How is that feminist?” Borrell bristles. “We’re the feminists, the ones fighting for their rights.”

While advocates for legalization argue that it will make sex work safer, abolitionists counter that it could instead endanger women who, unlike the members of OTRAS, did not choose to enter the profession on their own. Abolitionists frame their anti-prostitution stance around the issue of human trafficking, specifically for prostitution. They argue that regulating sex work will simply allow traffickers to exploit women under legal cover.

“The trafficked women have no papers, so if police raid a club, the women have no choice but to say they’re there because they want to be,” says Rocío Nieto […] Once law enforcement is out of earshot, Nieto says, “none of the women tell you they want to be there. None of them tell you they want to do that work.”

A handful of smaller radical-left parties also back OTRAS, as well as one unlikely ally: the right-wing Ciudadanos party, known for its harsh anti-immigration stance, among other more traditionally conservative postures. “Experience shows us that when the State refuses to regulate, the mafias make the rules,” the party’s press corps wrote me in an e-mail.

Thank you!

I’m so sorry.

Why can’t the U.S. buy decent sauerkraut at the store? Why must we make it ourselves or get awful kraut? Germany has a unique and delightful kraut for seemingly every town and village, but the U.S. has exactly one type from a handful of companies that all make it the same. Well, maybe two types if you count ‘canned’ but I don’t reckon that to be actual sauerkraut. What was the topic? Sandwiches? Well, if I could find a good kraut, I would spend my days trying to recreate a reuben-like masterpiece.

It is much worse than that. CNBC had a recent piece on how America PAC is partially funded by Musk and is collecting specific user data.

You see an ad that says it will help you vote. If you are NOT in a battle ground state, it will actually help you register. But if you ARE in a battleground state, CNBC states (archive):

[…] users who enter a ZIP code that indicates they live in a battleground state, like Pennsylvania or Georgia, the process is very different.

Rather than be directed to their state’s voter registration page, they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cellphone number and age.

So that person who wanted help registering to vote? In the end, they got no help at all registering. But they did hand over priceless personal data to a political operation.

“What makes America PAC more unique: it is a billionaire-backed super PAC focused on door-to-door canvassing, which it can conduct in coordination with a presidential campaign,” Fischer said. “Thanks to a recent FEC advisory opinion, America PAC may legally coordinate its canvassing activities with the Trump campaign — meaning, among other things, that the Trump campaign may provide America PAC with the literature and scripts to make sure their efforts are consistent.”

The America PAC raised more than $8 million between April 1 and June 30, according to FEC records. It has received donations from veteran investor Doug Leone, cryptocurrency investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and a company run by longtime venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, according to FEC records.

They also quote the NYT in saying Lonsdale is one of Musk’s political confidants – which is interesting because he’s at Palantir which was you’d think of as his old buddy Peter Theil’s gig. Palantir sells info. More precisely, they know how to intake truthful data and turn it into actionable details. I’ve no idea how they check for validity, though. Some days it feels like everything on Twitter is a lie and hearing that this ‘help you vote’ program is also a lie just makes me wonder if anyone is honest over there.

We already had the Expanded Access Program (thank you ACT UP) and we don’t want a repeat of thalidomide babies like we had before there were strong protections on how drugs get tested.

So now we have Expanded Access (EAP) with FDA oversite and Right to Try (RTT) without that oversight. Having both is confusing for everyone and most people don’t know which covers what. From Journal of Law and the Biosciences (they only sampled 17 neuro-oncologists from 15 different academic medical centers):

Many physicians described having difficulty in distinguishing between RTT and EAP or demonstrated misconceptions in their responses. A physician with knowledge of both pathways spoke about his colleagues generally: ‘I don’t think a lot of people understand the difference between expanded access and Right-To-Try’ [Participant 1]. The confusion resulted in conflation with the different features between EAP and RTT including structure, intent, and processes of these pathways. In response to our question ‘Have you provided a drug through Right-to-Try?’ one clinician erroneously replied, ‘I think most compassionate use is under that category’ [Participant 2]. Another drew a rough equivalence between the two despite the absence of FDA oversight for RTT: ‘I guess the way I try to think about Right-to-Try is like compassionate use.

Decades ago, before the internet, when your local radio stations and newspapers paid for service to a special machine that constantly churned out stories from stringers and main branches, there was a saying that I no longer remember but went something like, “Associated Press gets the story first; United Press gets it right.”

We never doubted that AP/UP/Reu/(etc.) were feeding most the news. The sources were right there in print.

It is good to remind people that while there are an endless number of websites, most news still comes from a handful of sources. I will even agree that our sources are all biased.

That said there are some stories where bias should be expected; where there aren’t really two sides. Example: “Locals outraged by villian’s kicking puppies!” Good reporting might include the reasoning, but the public is not going to side with the puppy-kicker. Surely there was a better way to handle the situation before it got to that.

The public does not side with Hitler, either. Personally, I am thankful that the larger public has been ‘brainwashed’ into thinking Hitler was ‘bad’. It saddens me that there are Nazis (or neo-Nazis) in countries that fought to end that vile cause. The citizenry should know better. More than that, the citizenry should know that all autocrats are bad. Any benevolent dictator is still mortal and will cede the position to someone else, and it won’t be long before the ‘someone else’ is not benevolent.

So: thank you for posting the link reminding everyone to be critical of all news sources, but also remember that some things are fairly reported. Sometimes a point of view is valid. Sometimes there is an actual solid truth that is being told. Yes, sometimes that truth is getting sensationalized, but that doesn’t it make it less true.

For this particular case, I will re-iterate that I am worried about potential strife. If my family was living in Venezuela, I would want a stable and well funded government without corruption and without dictatorship. I don’t think the people had that as a ballot option, and I don’t trust any of the players. I do miss Chavez, though. The U.S. gave him a raw deal.