Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Daniel Moody, recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: it has been now several days since Special Counsel Jack
Speaker 1: Smith has indicted for twice impeached libel for sexual assault
Speaker 1: and defamation disgraced former President of the United States Donald
Speaker 1: Trump on thirty seven felony counts. Now, one would think, right,
Speaker 1: call me crazy, but one would think that there would
Speaker 1: be a line, right that at some point Donald Trump
Speaker 1: would cross in order to have Republicans be like, hmm,
Speaker 1: maybe he's not the best candidate for our party. Maybe
Speaker 1: he's not the best representative of our values. Maybe maybe
Speaker 1: we should look someplace else. Well, if you thought that,
Speaker 1: you would be one hundred and fifty five percent fucking wrong,
Speaker 1: because what we saw over the weekend and at the
Speaker 1: beginning of this week, as you guys will listen to
Speaker 1: this today, Donald Trump will be arraigned by three pm
Speaker 1: Eastern in Miami. And you know what is wild to
Speaker 1: me are the ways that I watch Jim Jordan fucking
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham. You had Andy Biggs tweet out talking about
Speaker 1: this is war and an eye for an eye and
Speaker 1: then he had to backtrack on that fucking violent threat
Speaker 1: that he sent out via Twitter. You had Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: on CNN talking some crazy hot trash to Dana Bash,
Speaker 1: who was just like, so you think as they're showing
Speaker 1: the pictures of Trump's tackyass bathroom and all of the
Speaker 1: documents that were in there, all the boxes and stuff
Speaker 1: grown on the floor and on the stage and in
Speaker 1: all the pictures now that are infamous, do you think
Speaker 1: that this is secure? Do you think that this is okay?
Speaker 1: And Jim Jordan's response is like, well, he was the
Speaker 1: president of the United States. He can do whatever the
Speaker 1: fuck he wants. And I just gotta say, folks, like
Speaker 1: if only Donald Trump wore a tan suit, maybe that
Speaker 1: would be crossing a line, you know, Like, I just
Speaker 1: don't know how these people still bring up Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: fucking emails that were investigated for a year and guess
Speaker 1: what they found, not a fucking thing. And they seem
Speaker 1: to forget that Donald Trump was president for four fucking years, right,
Speaker 1: he had his hand picked attorney generals that could have
Speaker 1: right opened up investigations did in fact open up investigations
Speaker 1: into his political opponents for no other reason. Than the
Speaker 1: fact that they were his political opponents, and do you
Speaker 1: know what they came up with, Not a fucking thing
Speaker 1: that would stand for a grand jury's indictment. So you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying, look, don't defend your boy. That's your boy.
Speaker 1: That's the fucking you know, Titanic. You wanna sail on
Speaker 1: by all means. But the way that they are attacking
Speaker 1: Jack Smith, attacking Merrit Garland, attacking Joe Biden, attacking our
Speaker 1: judicial system is just absolutely bananas. But of course, instead
Speaker 1: of instead of cable news really digging into that fact
Speaker 1: and just how fucking unprecedented all of this is, they
Speaker 1: got camera and fucking drone footage of Donald Trump on
Speaker 1: a highway, Donald Trump on a tarmac, just giving the man,
Speaker 1: once again wall to wall coverage because we don't know
Speaker 1: how one gets from their home to the airport, We
Speaker 1: don't know what happens when the plane takes off. We
Speaker 1: gotta watch it take off, and we gotta watch it
Speaker 1: fucking land. It's absurd. It is absurd that this media
Speaker 1: has learned absolutely nothing. And people will say like, it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's money, Donald Trump is ratings, and I'm
Speaker 1: just like, not really because people are tuning out and
Speaker 1: turning it off, right like, until there is something of
Speaker 1: substance to actually offer. But you know, Lindsey Graham saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, you know, Donald Trump may have done
Speaker 1: some things, you know that we're wrong, but he's not spy.
Speaker 1: Well guess what, Lindsay Graham. Nobody said that he was
Speaker 1: a spy. What the indictment clearly reads, though, is that
Speaker 1: he violated the Espionage Act. What the indictment, forty nine
Speaker 1: page indictment clearly says is that he obstructed justice, right
Speaker 1: that he continually lied that this wasn't just a packing incident.
Speaker 1: This was moving boxes around so that his lawyers wouldn't
Speaker 1: find out and wouldn't give them over to the National
Speaker 1: Archives or to the FBI. So again, Donald Trump wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been indicted if, when asked multiple fucking times over
Speaker 1: to return said boxes, if he just said, okay, here
Speaker 1: they are, come and get them. Much in the same
Speaker 1: way that classified material was found at for or Vice
Speaker 1: President Mike Pence's house, that classified material was found at
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's house. Did any of those two say, oh,
Speaker 1: these are documents and you can't have them. Were any
Speaker 1: of them caught on audio saying, oh look, look you
Speaker 1: it's all secret stuff. You can't really see it. I
Speaker 1: couldn't declassified it, but I can't classify it now. Like
Speaker 1: I tell you, it's like Donald Trump is work. Like
Speaker 1: I don't even want to make light of the stupidity
Speaker 1: by comparing it to Scooby Doo, by comparing it to like,
Speaker 1: you know, some sitcom or show, but it is. It's like,
Speaker 1: it's wild. It's wild as fuck where we are as
Speaker 1: a country. It is wild to me that you have
Speaker 1: sitting members of Congress that are calling for people to
Speaker 1: take up arms. It is wild to me that there
Speaker 1: is no line that Donald Trump can cross, There is
Speaker 1: no low that he can take them to where they
Speaker 1: won't continue to defend this man, even if they look
Speaker 1: like absolute fucking fools. It is, you know, it's insane.
Speaker 1: So you know, this case, it's going to be heard
Speaker 1: before Judge Aileen Cannon. And if her name sounds familiar,
Speaker 1: it's because she was the one that initially tried to
Speaker 1: slow the document's case. She did not want the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice to be able to actually look through said documents,
Speaker 1: and then her decisions that she made in the initial
Speaker 1: quote unquote raid intomorrow Lago was overturned by a conservative
Speaker 1: three panel eleventh District Court circuit overturned her decision. And
Speaker 1: not only, folks, not only did they overturn it. But
Speaker 1: the funny thing is, and not funny ha ha, is
Speaker 1: that they basically said that she's ridiculous, right like, they
Speaker 1: basically said that she quote, her decision was clearly violating
Speaker 1: the law. They said this, and this is according to
Speaker 1: a Slate article that was written. That much maligned decision
Speaker 1: right was later reversed by a three judge panel of
Speaker 1: this US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, consisting
Speaker 1: of three conservative judges, two Trump appointees, and a George W.
Speaker 1: Bush appointed judge, Judge William Pryor. They wrote that her
Speaker 1: decision violated quote clear law and that her approach quote
Speaker 1: would be a radical reordering of our case law, limiting
Speaker 1: the federal court's involvement in criminal investigations. They also went
Speaker 1: on to say and quote violate bedrock separation of power limitations. Now,
Speaker 1: they go on to write in this Slate article now
Speaker 1: that the same investigation has resulted in an indictment against Trump.
Speaker 1: Judge Pannon's prior fundamentally erroneous approach casts a shadow over
Speaker 1: the proceedings and what they are arguing. What is being
Speaker 1: argued in this piece that is up now at slate
Speaker 1: dot com is that she must recuse herself right, that
Speaker 1: there is no way that this woman, who her own
Speaker 1: colleagues who were appointed by Trump and Bush, so these
Speaker 1: are not Obama or Clinton federal judges, say basically, bitch
Speaker 1: what you're doing. Do you actually know the law? And
Speaker 1: remind you that this is a judge that was pushed
Speaker 1: through by Mitch McConnell and Trump after he lost the election,
Speaker 1: so you know, knowing all of this, there is no
Speaker 1: way in hell that this judge, Aileen Cannon, is going
Speaker 1: to be impartial. There is no way that she is
Speaker 1: going to allow the rule of law right to dictate
Speaker 1: her decisions, because she made it clear even the retrieval
Speaker 1: of the document she was trying a slow roll and
Speaker 1: ordered a special master where one was not needed to
Speaker 1: look at the contents of this. So it is clear
Speaker 1: that she is a Trump lackeye and needs to recuse
Speaker 1: herself and that the DOJ should take the very necessary
Speaker 1: step right of getting her removed because there is absolute
Speaker 1: precedent of this, and I just want to read you
Speaker 1: this last part from slate. Federal law has a way
Speaker 1: to deal with this challenge. Under twenty eight USC. Section
Speaker 1: four five to five A, a judge shall disqualify himself or
Speaker 1: herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality
Speaker 1: might reasonably be questioned. Judge Cannon's situation clearly fits the test,
Speaker 1: and she is obligated to recuse herself in Trump's case.
Speaker 1: So we will see how this plays out and whether
Speaker 1: or not the DOJ takes the step to even you know,
Speaker 1: to put her in the hot seat and let her
Speaker 1: show us that she isn't a lackey. So, folks, it
Speaker 1: is going to be a busy, busy week. We will
Speaker 1: keep our eyes on everything. Coming up next my conversation,
Speaker 1: which is a deep conversation folks with Sarah Moore, who
Speaker 1: is affiliated with ADL and GLAD to talk about the
Speaker 1: rise in anti LGBTQ plus extremism. Folks, I am very
Speaker 1: happy to be joined on wok F daily by Sarah Moore,
Speaker 1: who is an anti LGBTQ plus extremism analyst for both
Speaker 1: the ADL the Anti Defamation League and works with Glad
Speaker 1: double a Glad as well, Sarah. I want to start
Speaker 1: off one because you must get a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about your job title and exactly what it is that
Speaker 1: you are analyzing and covering. But I want to jump
Speaker 1: right in because we are seeing both arise in attacks
Speaker 1: against the lgbt Q community, both violent and through online
Speaker 1: kind of attacks, and we're also seeing a set of
Speaker 1: policy measures that are couched in extremism, that are that
Speaker 1: are being essentially the rhetoric is fueling the policies that
Speaker 1: are then trying to erase right and vilify and oppress
Speaker 1: the community. And so I want you to if you
Speaker 1: can part and parcel for us the difference between anti
Speaker 1: LGBTQ plus hate versus LGBTQ plus extremism, and if like,
Speaker 1: what is the nuance and the needle we're trying to
Speaker 1: thread there?
Speaker 2: Sure, So first just want to say thank you so
Speaker 2: much for having me on, Danielle. Very excited to be
Speaker 2: talking with you today. So, as you mentioned, I work
Speaker 2: with with both ADL and GLAD, and so one of
Speaker 2: the ways that we define anti LGBTQ plus extremism in
Speaker 2: ADL is we're talking specifically about this form of single
Speaker 2: issue extremism whose adherents are focused on demonizing, attacking, or
Speaker 2: otherwise targeting either the individuals, the communities, or the institutions
Speaker 2: that fall under this LGBTQ plus umbrella or that they
Speaker 2: perceive to fall under that umbrella. Right, So, sometimes folks
Speaker 2: are passing as are presenting as queer, even if that's
Speaker 2: maybe not how they identified and or a targeted because
Speaker 2: of that clue, kind of that nuance into the definition
Speaker 2: as well. And then we have this like much broader
Speaker 2: bucket of ANTIOLOGBTQ plus hate. And so I think of
Speaker 2: this form of extremism as just a subset of that
Speaker 2: broader form of hate. But when we're looking at ANTILOGBTQ
Speaker 2: plus hate, we aren't always seeing this same ideological commitment
Speaker 2: in the same way that we do with extremism. So
Speaker 2: a lot of times the folks that are dabbling in
Speaker 2: this form of hate are also following into you know,
Speaker 2: other types of hate as well. You know, maybe they
Speaker 2: are on the anti critical race theory train, or maybe
Speaker 2: they are involved in like mass mandate protests or anti
Speaker 2: vax protests, and so, you know, they oftentimes have a
Speaker 2: lot of other issues that they care about and aren't
Speaker 2: really committed to this form of extremism in the same way,
Speaker 2: or maybe you know, they have some hateful beliefs but
Speaker 2: it's not a core part of their daily activities, or
Speaker 2: you know, something that they're trying to act out in
Speaker 2: real life. So, you know, there's a lot of different
Speaker 2: ways that antology to kep us hate can manifest, but
Speaker 2: we are also specifically looking at the ways that this
Speaker 2: turns into extremes them as well.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a time not too long ago
Speaker 1: when we were all applauding the Obama White House turning rainbow,
Speaker 1: where we were all applauding the passage of same sex
Speaker 1: marriage across this country, where we were applauding those states
Speaker 1: that were getting rid of really draconian sodomy laws that
Speaker 1: were still on the books. And now, Sarah, we are
Speaker 1: at a place where we are holding on for dear
Speaker 1: life to the rights that have been so hard thought
Speaker 1: over the last several decades. And so how do you
Speaker 1: kind of wrap your mind around what feels like for
Speaker 1: me at least, who is spent the last you know,
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen years of my career working on the
Speaker 1: front lines of LGBTQ equality. And justice and watching that
Speaker 1: fifty in just my little section right that time frame
Speaker 1: now kind of descend into chaos where we're holding on
Speaker 1: by our fingernails, Like, how do you make sense of
Speaker 1: the erosion in acceptance that Republicans and their kind of
Speaker 1: campaign of hate against the community has been able to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I think it's kind of the million dollar question,
Speaker 2: you know, how did we get to this particular moment
Speaker 2: in time. You know, the first thing I'll say is
Speaker 2: that anti LGBTQ plus hate is not new, right, This
Speaker 2: is decades old, a century's old phenomena, and it's taken
Speaker 2: many manifestations, and it's been more prominent in the societal
Speaker 2: discourse at different eras. So you know a lot of
Speaker 2: today's conversation, for instance, around this rhetoric around grooming actually
Speaker 2: has direct parallel back to campaigns in the nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: like anant Saved the Children campaign and all the same
Speaker 2: tropes that we saw back then. So we know that
Speaker 2: there are different resurgences of anti LGBTQ plus hate and
Speaker 2: extremists them at different periods of time. And I think
Speaker 2: this particular moment in time, and we've seen the ways
Speaker 2: in which some of these extremist narratives. For instance, this
Speaker 2: one around grooming that I just referenced with the Nida
Speaker 2: Bryant campaign, you know, that really picked up in popularity
Speaker 2: in conversation around don't say gay back in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: one because we actually started having mainstream politicians labeling their
Speaker 2: bills anti grooming bills, or you know, following up on
Speaker 2: some trends and some of these tropes that only extremists
Speaker 2: had previously been talking about. So we've seen that, you know,
Speaker 2: this stuff has always existed on the fringes, but now
Speaker 2: as folks are kind of turning their attention to this
Speaker 2: more from the mainstream side, it's getting picked up and
Speaker 2: replayed in popular discourse. We've also seen that happen too
Speaker 2: with you know, other positions that the fire right has
Speaker 2: often taken, so I referenced before, like the anti COVID measures,
Speaker 2: some of the anti CRT measures, those have kind of
Speaker 2: lost traction as they've now switched this focus into the
Speaker 2: anti LGBTQ plus space, and so some of it is opportunistic, right,
Speaker 2: just making sure that they're keeping up like that extremes,
Speaker 2: they're keeping up with the popular talking points of the day.
Speaker 2: For recruitment purposes, but it also, you know, belies this
Speaker 2: underlying hate that's always been there and has just kind
Speaker 2: of become the popular moment at this point in time.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that one of the things that
Speaker 1: troubles me the most is some stats. And you tell
Speaker 1: me if I'm if I'm right or not. But some
Speaker 1: of the stats that I'm seeing are that there are
Speaker 1: about a million trans people in the country, a country
Speaker 1: of you know, three hundred and thirty million people. They're
Speaker 1: about a million trans people or gender nonconforming folks that
Speaker 1: exist in the country. And there is an entire campaign,
Speaker 1: an entire apparatus, an entire war being waged on a
Speaker 1: minority of a minority right, And so how do we
Speaker 1: articulate to the public through mainstream media? The fact is
Speaker 1: that this monster, this quote unquote boogeyman that's being created
Speaker 1: by the right is targeting a minority of a minority
Speaker 1: of people that at least seventy percent of the country
Speaker 1: has actually never come face to face or know somebody
Speaker 1: that identifies as trans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Danielle, it's you know, you're hitting on a really
Speaker 2: important topic in that this this particular piece of this
Speaker 2: transphobia argument that's being you know, such a big part
Speaker 2: of the ANTILOGBTQ plus discourse. That's exactly what's being used
Speaker 2: right now as this wedge issue. Right. So, like as
Speaker 2: you discussed, we have seen increased acceptance for LGBTQ plus rights,
Speaker 2: and so a lot of times the veneer that some
Speaker 2: of these bigots or extremists will put on is saying like, well,
Speaker 2: I don't you know, I do support gay marriage, but
Speaker 2: I just don't support you know, these trans people right
Speaker 2: or or the rights that they have to healthcare. And
Speaker 2: so they're using it as this kind of wedge issue
Speaker 2: to try to break folks away and break apart the
Speaker 2: LGBTQ plus community. We've unfortunately already seen that with some
Speaker 2: groups that actually themselves identify as gay and are going
Speaker 2: after trans or intersex or asexual people and saying, you know,
Speaker 2: we don't want you as part of the community because
Speaker 2: they think that, you know, that will allow them to
Speaker 2: hold on to the rights that we've worked so hard
Speaker 2: to achieve, or you know, maybe they don't see and
Speaker 2: you know, which is baffling to me, they don't see
Speaker 2: the humanity in you know, our fellow trans folks. And
Speaker 2: in intersex folks and asexual folks in our community, you know,
Speaker 2: when we're all part of the same struggle. And and
Speaker 2: as you pointed out, like all of our rights are
Speaker 2: on the line here, it's not just trans rights. It's
Speaker 2: an issue facing all LGBTQ plus people right now.
Speaker 1: I think that that's why the trans community has always
Speaker 1: been a target. I can remember working on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: back in the one hundred and thirteen Congress, so this
Speaker 1: is quite a while ago, and at that time, Barney
Speaker 1: Frank was still on the Hill. He was the sole
Speaker 1: LGBTQ person on the Hill representative out of Massachusetts, and
Speaker 1: you know, and there was conversation about this, you know,
Speaker 1: this this bill that was coming forth about equity and
Speaker 1: inclusion and including lesbian, gay, and bisexual lgb people in
Speaker 1: protections right civil rights protections. And I remember being in
Speaker 1: offices where they said, we'll come back for the t
Speaker 1: like it's too hard for people even within the LGBTQ
Speaker 1: plus community to quote unquote understand, so we'll come back
Speaker 1: for those folks. And so, you know, you say that
Speaker 1: to me, and it's so triggering because I thought we
Speaker 1: had moved to a place where we had moved past that, right, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, when that bill was introduced, it was only LGBT, right,
Speaker 1: we weren't at the Q and the I and the
Speaker 1: A and the plus part of the acronym. And so
Speaker 1: to hear that there are queer groups, gay groups that
Speaker 1: would be willing to sacrifice this marginalized targeted group in
Speaker 1: order to hold on to what they have, how do
Speaker 1: you even work with that? Like, how do we you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, Like, we're trying to convince cis
Speaker 1: straight people right to be our partners and ally and
Speaker 1: be vocal, and yet we're still having this kind of
Speaker 1: discourse inside of the community, right.
Speaker 2: It's it's baffling to me. And I think that that
Speaker 2: just underscores the importance of you know, when we say equality,
Speaker 2: we have to mean equality for all. We cannot be
Speaker 2: leaving folks behind in this conversation. I mean to me,
Speaker 2: it brings back parallels to like even the beginnings of
Speaker 2: let's say the suffragette movement movement, right, and the ways
Speaker 2: in which white women at the time we're willing to
Speaker 2: leave out are the women of color in the communities
Speaker 2: and saying, you know, I'm going to try to take
Speaker 2: this for me right now, and you can have it
Speaker 2: at some point in time, but it's not going to
Speaker 2: be right now. And so I think we really need
Speaker 2: to remember these historical parallels and the ways in which
Speaker 2: we've left folks behind and make sure that we're not
Speaker 2: doing that in this current moment, because again, it's all
Speaker 2: of our rights on the line right now. You know,
Speaker 2: these folks aren't just going to stop when they've banned
Speaker 2: trans healthcare. We're they're also you know, pushing for provoking
Speaker 2: you know, same sex marriage. They're also pushing for you know,
Speaker 2: we're moving like LGBTQ plus curricula in schools, and so
Speaker 2: these are things that affect all LGBTQ plus persons and
Speaker 2: frankly all persons, right And so because of that, you know,
Speaker 2: and not to mention the fact that you know, our
Speaker 2: trans brothers and sisters like they're humans too, why would
Speaker 2: we not want to fight for there?
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: So that's just a little bit of VI tangent there,
Speaker 2: and I think that kind of hits them, what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, you know.
Speaker 1: So when we look just like across the country over
Speaker 1: and let's just take the beginning of the Trump years
Speaker 1: to now, because this is when we've seen a real
Speaker 1: escalation in violence towards marginalized communities, whether that be anti
Speaker 1: Asian hate, whether it is unarmed black people being killed
Speaker 1: in the streets, on playgrounds, in stores, at churches, whether
Speaker 1: it be you know, the queer community, and also the
Speaker 1: Jewish community, which is always also a target. How do
Speaker 1: we like, how do we connect or what? What? What
Speaker 1: do you like? Is there a connection to be made
Speaker 1: so that each group is not fighting on their own
Speaker 1: against the same perpetrator, do you know what? I like?
Speaker 1: The people that are harassing and harming Asian people are
Speaker 1: the same people that are targeting trans children. Are the
Speaker 1: same people that say black lives don't matter. Are the
Speaker 1: same people that are voting against bodily autonomy and abortion rights.
Speaker 1: You know, So it's like, how do you work to
Speaker 1: make the connection you know in this space?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great question. So my particular role is
Speaker 2: actually a result of folks having that same conversation. I
Speaker 2: work for both ADL and GLAD. ADL is a Jewish
Speaker 2: organization and GLAD is an LGBTQ plus organization, and I'm
Speaker 2: part of a new program that we're launching that they're
Speaker 2: calling kind of the embed program, which means that they're
Speaker 2: taking researchers from organizations that serve different constituencies and putting
Speaker 2: them inside ADL Center on Extremism so that we can
Speaker 2: all sit together and work on the same issue, because,
Speaker 2: as you're pointing out, we're all fighting the same people,
Speaker 2: you know, the same groups that are going to be
Speaker 2: anti Semitic, that are going to be racists, that are
Speaker 2: going to be against the Asian community, are also coming.
Speaker 1: For the LGBTQ plus company.
Speaker 2: And so that's really what we're working on as part
Speaker 2: of this partnership, and we're actually expanding and bringing in
Speaker 2: folks that are going to look at some of these
Speaker 2: other areas as well that have been kind of underrepresented
Speaker 2: in some of the work that we've been doing so far,
Speaker 2: and making sure that we're serving those communities and as
Speaker 2: you're saying, you know, and making sure that we're all
Speaker 2: fighting the same fight.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the things that I think came
Speaker 1: out through going into the January sixth committee hearings was
Speaker 1: the fact that the FBI had warned right how a
Speaker 1: report that warned that white domestic extremism was going to
Speaker 1: be the biggest threat to our democracy that it wasn't
Speaker 1: outside quote unquote foreign terrorism, that it was white domestic terrorism.
Speaker 1: What do you make of that kind of report and
Speaker 1: what would have or should have been the proper reaction
Speaker 1: to that other than oh that was nice, Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for letting us know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a tricky question. But I think I think
Speaker 2: unfortunately that report came at a time where the reaction
Speaker 2: was going to be you know, yeah, thanks, We already
Speaker 2: know because that report was a culmination of the work
Speaker 2: of different organizations like ADA, like GLAD, like other advocacy
Speaker 2: and other groups focusing on extremism that have been saying,
Speaker 2: you know, screaming about this intel that we've been collecting
Speaker 2: for years. I mean, I think that reporting man wasn't
Speaker 2: really a shock to anybody. So, you know, we're we're
Speaker 2: all kind of working on this particular issue, and I
Speaker 2: think that it's you know, frankly about time that the
Speaker 2: government recognizes that this is an issue that they need
Speaker 2: to be working with too. And so that's why, you know,
Speaker 2: we do work with law enforcement through als law enforcement connections,
Speaker 2: and I do understand that there are you know, lots
Speaker 2: of tensions that go into that when you're working with
Speaker 2: groups that represent people of color, groups that represent the
Speaker 2: LGBTQ plus community. But do think that those are important
Speaker 2: bridges to be able to have so that way, you know,
Speaker 2: these folks aren't in the dark about what we all
Speaker 2: know to be the reality of living as a queer
Speaker 2: person or a person of color in this country.
Speaker 1: Sarah, last question for you, what are what are the
Speaker 1: things you know that people listening who feel really scared,
Speaker 1: who feel this sense of hopelessness at all of these
Speaker 1: attacks that they're reading in the headlines that they're seeing
Speaker 1: come across on news channels, what can they do in
Speaker 1: order to be helpful to the work that ADL is doing,
Speaker 1: the work that GLAD doing. How can this both look
Speaker 1: like national aid in some type of way but be
Speaker 1: localized as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we have a ton of different ways that
Speaker 2: that folks can get involved and can help out. I
Speaker 2: think the biggest one is just reporting incidents when they
Speaker 2: do come up and your communities. So we will actually
Speaker 2: be launching a report in a couple of weeks that's
Speaker 2: tracking incidents of ANTIOLOGBTQ plus hate and extremism in the
Speaker 2: US for the last eleven months, and a lot of
Speaker 2: the ways that we collect these incidents are through reports
Speaker 2: on ADL's reporting mechanism online, which connects folks with our
Speaker 2: regional offices and so they can get assistance that they
Speaker 2: need immediately, but also allows us to track the ways
Speaker 2: that this hate is spreading in our communities, especially you know,
Speaker 2: with the issues that we recognize in reporting to law enforcement.
Speaker 2: So this can sometimes be an alternative for folks who
Speaker 2: maybe don't need that emergent help, but you know, want
Speaker 2: to make sure that somebody out there is aware of
Speaker 2: what they're experiencing. We also at ADL and Glass have
Speaker 2: a lot of different resources on ways that you can
Speaker 2: combat hate online. So GLAD just recently dropped their LGBTQ
Speaker 2: Digital Safety Guide, So folks who are looking to better
Speaker 2: protect themselves or LGBTQ plus Commune New York's in their
Speaker 2: cities can look at that guide and take away some
Speaker 2: really practical steps on things that they can do to
Speaker 2: kind of preempt some of this type of hate and
Speaker 2: extremism that they might face. And then on kind the
Speaker 2: retroactively side, Adel has a cyber Safety Action Guide that
Speaker 2: folks can use to report hate to platforms. It's not
Speaker 2: to say that the platforms are always going to listen,
Speaker 2: but a lot of times the first step is saying that,
Speaker 2: you know, we have to be able to show that
Speaker 2: we are reporting this hate and that it is an issue,
Speaker 2: and then we can put extra pressure on them to
Speaker 2: make those changes online and then kind of at the
Speaker 2: national level, you know, in at the state level too,
Speaker 2: we really do need folks to stand out. Is to
Speaker 2: stand up against the anti LGBTQ plus legislation that we're seeing.
Speaker 2: I need to call in their lawmakers to stand strong
Speaker 2: in the face of the community, in the face of
Speaker 2: the hate that's being average against the community right now.
Speaker 2: And we are supporting some bills that are are really
Speaker 2: helpful as well. So one that we're looking right now
Speaker 2: is FEMA's Nonprofit Security Grant program, which offers aid to
Speaker 2: local security local nonprofits that are trying to get better
Speaker 2: physical security systems for themselves.
Speaker 1: Okay, one this hate.
Speaker 2: So we're supporting bills like that to be able to
Speaker 2: offer these or some extra protection knowing the environment that
Speaker 2: they're currently operating in. So that was a lot, but
Speaker 2: hopefully that gives kind of a range of things that
Speaker 2: individuals can take on and stuff that we can do
Speaker 2: at the state and national level as well.
Speaker 1: No, I really appreciate it because I know that people
Speaker 1: and will make sure also to like put those details
Speaker 1: and the links to the respective organizations in our show
Speaker 1: notes so that people can easily access the reports and
Speaker 1: access the guides and figure out other ways that they
Speaker 1: can support the work that is happening at ADL and Glad. Sarah,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for making the time to join
Speaker 1: WOKP and thank you very much for the work that
Speaker 1: you are doing. We appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. It's been such a pleasure to
Speaker 2: be on the show. And I just want to end
Speaker 2: to with saying, you know, thank you for highlighting queer
Speaker 2: joy this month. I know that with my stuff that
Speaker 2: I work on, you know, it's it's oftentimes the opposite
Speaker 2: of that. Yeah, it's so important to have the joyous
Speaker 2: aspect of it too, and to showcase how amazingly resilient
Speaker 2: and beautiful and diverse community is. So I think that
Speaker 2: that's really amazing and it was a pleasure to be on.
Speaker 1: Absolutely thank you. That is it for me today, dear
Speaker 1: friends on WOKP. As always, power to the people and
Speaker 1: to all the people, Power, get woke and stay woke
Speaker 1: as fuck,