News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I follow Erin in the Morning, and I totally agree things aren't looking good. Death camps aren't impossible.
But you don't have support for this statement right?
Let me be clear: I'm completely onboard with you. We probably have similar opinions. I just wanted to see the source for this claim. (That is, the claim that there exists a state which introduced a capital offense that could plausibly be used to target LGBTQ people.)
Perhaps I should clarify “intended effect” as it being a thin veil. They can claim they are doing this to protect children from all predators, while simultaneously repeating the groomers line over and over again.
In my opinion, it seems a little too coincidental that they pass this law in a state that has a very hostile anti-LGBTQ+ stance, while also attempting to portray us as child predators.
It’s possible that I am drawing conclusions incorrectly, but I sincerely doubt it.
Yeah, I mean, I agree it's suspect. It's probably the most anti-LGBT state right now, and they've been passing anti-trans laws, such as the drag ban you mentioned -- it all lines up. The only thing missing here is that I don't actually see how this particular law would actually be used to target LGBT people. I have a high prior that this is intended to be anti-LGBT, it's just I don't see how it actually could be. I would change my mind if I saw a plausible explanation of how it could be used to target LGBT people.
Think of it less as how this specific law will be used to target LGBTQ+ people directly, but as a stepping stone to push for more laws that expand the reach of it to eventually include LGBTQ+ people.
Some may argue that this is quite the leap, but there have been 598 pieces of legislation that have been proposed in 2025 alone, with (luckily) only 66 that have passed, that target LGBTQ+ people.
I am leery when it comes to “protect the children” legislation these days. There always seems to be an ulterior motive behind them.
Protect the children is basically always cover for something sinister. If there were easy gains to be made protecting children without sacrificing some critical personal liberties like privacy, I think those gains would have already been made.
Anyway I agree with you that everything is really bad, especially for queer people who are now a scapegoat. Or, just a target of hate with no particular scape in mind, I guess. But it's rather detrimental to make stuff up (i.e. about this specific law) to make things look worse than they are. You have already shown you have dozens of actual established facts with the links you've posted, that show things are really bad and getting worse. If you want to speculate that the death penalty is coming, that's fine, just please be clear that it's an inference, not present-day reality.
In the case of capital punishment, I don’t think the intent is for them to actually use the death penalty on us, but to use it as a scare tactic to push us closer to full erasure from public life. To say “look what we could possibly do to you” sort of thing.
Possible, but they'll probably have to actually try somebody for a capital offense before people are legitimately scared of capital punishment.