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.
The Post is a shit rag
Slammin’!
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.
Opposing the killing of children is apparently more controversial than being supportive of child rapists.
Anything that opposes the will of Israel is antisemitic and wrong. /s
The pendulum is gonna swing
Mr. Rogers would oppose the killing of Palestinian children.
And the New York Post would condemn him for it.
Fox News had already went on the record calling him “evil” so New York Post doing the same is probably not far-fetched.
Jesus would probably not be fine with it too. They’d send him to a Konzentrationslager.
We NEED to Protect the Children!
-People PROTECTING a Man who had Sex with a Pregnant Child while THREATENING a Woman who says we SHOULDNT Bomb Children!
“Controversial” here seems like a basic statement of fact. One might think that she ought not to be controversial, but she is.
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.
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
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.
For some people, feeding the hungry, or healing the sick, or even outright “not bombing kids” is controversial.
WTF, humanity
And those people, believe it or not, are Christians
