https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/world/europe/gabriel-attal-france-prime-minister.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MU0.ima-.5eDA9FCC4fcE
Gabriel Attal, 34, replaces Élisabeth Borne in a cabinet shuffle that President Emmanuel Macron hopes can reinvigorate a term marked by drift and division.
!world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Really wish we could stop with the "openly gay". If you know somebody is gay, then they are out. If they aren't out, you shouldn't call them gay - with an exception for anti-gay bigots who should be called "probably gay bigot". It's minor thing, but I feel like this terminology fuels the right wing propaganda that gay people could just not exist if we weren't so stubborn.
Idk, I like it. It’s an acknowledgement that some may have been closeted and we can’t know. It’s always felt to me like a statement of “we have always existed at every level of society”
There’s also a suggestion implicit in the phrase that the person is not attempting to hide or downplay their identity, that they’re proud of themselves and represent me. It’s a very nice change from phrases I saw growing up.
Eventually the world will come to a point where sexuality, race and such isn't called out, it becomes irrelevant to mention, as all is accepted. I hope anyway.
What we call race today are arbitrary and irrelevant traits like skin color, but wait until genetic engineering takes the lead and we have different actual races with objectively superior races.
Idk much about genetic engineering and whatnot, but I'm definitely wary of the day people are really able to apply it to humans. Maybe I'm just catastrophasizing, I haven't studied this stuff at all, it just seems like it'd be a big deal. Kinda like how Darwinism and evolution had effects on the social/political climate.
Hopefully it isn't/won't be a big deal in a negative way. It's one of those things I should totally learn more about so it's less scary, I just haven't gotten to it yet. Sorry for the rant lol.
E: Come to think of it, it probably doesn't help that most of the "reading" I've done on the subject is from comic books, lmao. And the new(ish) Guardians of the Galaxy movie. No wonder the topic feels spooky.
I wish. Currently it seems like were going to the exact opposite direction and special focus is being put on people's race and sexuality. This headline is a great example; highlighting his sexuality and young age. I bet he'd rather be recognized for something he can actually take credit for.
I think, if the person in question is comfortable with such, it's okay to mention like 'first X as Y' as it shows some progression and awareness that anybody can now achieve anything and can encourage other people with the same or similar traits.
But yeah, hopefully once we get past that, we can get back to people being recognised for what they do, rather than what they look like or who they would prefer to fuck.
My guess is that it's to avoid something like finding records of a past leader who is gay, and them then being the first
My issue with this is: why does their sexuality even matter? It's their GD business
Eta: I also hate this with race and gender. "First woman to..." why? Why are we so focused on the color of people's skin, their religion, what's between their legs, or who they love?
I want to live in a world where a mixed-heritage lesbian woman is elected and no-one bats an eye, or mentions anything about it unless it comes up organically by the person elected. Otherwise the only legit question should be: is this person the best candidate for the job?
Ok Ill get off my soap box now
Here's something you may not know: When you are gay, you have to come out constantly. That's why famous people "announce" that they are gay. And let me assure you, gay people do not want to be the constant subject of public debate. We are the constant subject of public debate because people hate us and want us to die. And because people who maybe don't hate us or want us to die are really obsessed with making sure that those people have platforms on social media and other mainstream media platforms. So, if it's really wearing you down to hear about all these different kinds of people, maybe go yell at some bigots and the people who platform them?
Yeah, that's gotta suck and I'm 100% not against people talking about who they are if they WANT to. What irritates me is the labels people are forced carry.
Like "wow a woman was finally able to achieve what men can achieve" or "wow this gay man was finally able to acheive what straight men can achieve" and that's the part that annoys me
Eta: I think it's meant well, but it implies that there's something "special" about these people that allows them to climb the ranks previously reserved for a select group of people
So to truly be inclusive, things like "race" and gender and sexuality should be looked at as variations of normal, the same way hair color or height is looked at
2nd edit: Ok, sorry, but just to clarify I'm not harping on straight, white, males here. Swinging the pendulum the exact opposite way doesn't help, either. I'm seeing this more as a societal thing that I'd liked to see changed
My issue with this is: why does their sexuality even matter? It’s their GD business
With an historical background of certain groups of people being excluded on the basis of discrimination, it makes sense for these things to be newsworthy, as they serve as a "Look, this group of people can rise through the ranks too, and there's nothing wrong with it" general announce.
I want to live in a world where a mixed-heritage lesbian woman is elected and no-one bats an eye, or mentions anything about it unless it comes up organically by the person elected.
I agree with the sentiment, but that works better as an end goal than as a stage we should or could immediately switch into. There's still plenty of bigotry nowadays, and celebrating how it's slowly fading away helps to clean up the bastions where it remains.
It has to actually become a common thing for it to not be a big deal. You can't put the cart before the horse.
Sure, but before things can become commonplace we need voices advocating for the direction of that change. That's my goal. To be a voice.
Also, irrelevant to you, but: I might need a new Lemmy account. Connect isn't working for me and I can't find which e-mail I used to sign up for Lemmy. Super annoying, because I keep needing to search for the posts that I commented on, and then find the comments themselves in order to reply. My inbox just gives me errors about not finding the posts... but they're obviously still here
It is no one's responsibility to help you stay in the closet, and "openly gay" is useful and relevant to distinguishing whether or not someone is in the closet, which is pertinent to this topic.
No it's not? Either it's common knowledge someone is homosexual or they're not, "openly" really adds nothing to the conversation. "openly" implies they should be ashamed of it, hence the comment you were answering to.
It can also imply that past leaders were gay and not open about it. Like our Dandy President James Buchanan.
And I really wish people would stop being so self-centered as to request that news reporters use phrasing that be so imprecise as to be potentially untrue just to suit their whiny whims. You sound like you're so eager to introduce this little speech code of yours that you're asking the world to act and talk like non-outed gay people don't exist and never did. How more backwards can you get?