Read on Twitter
I’ve been thinking about the subhead in this that says “ But his confrontational approach could sometimes overshadow his achievements,” and while I recognize his work and opinions are controversial, I’m not sure NYT has the right to declare how he could/should be perceived.
ACT UP was a crucial organziation for speaking out how the government handled AIDS. I’m not sure the majority of the population understands how badly they handled the epidemic, and that a big reason was that the public/gov leaders didn’t care about gay people.
LGBTQ people lost a huge chunk of a generation to AIDS, and we feel this loss every day. AIDS also impacted and killed a lot of people who were marginalized. And Larry Kramer is one of the people who spoke out against that with the viciousness it deserved.
It’s unclear to me if the Times is saying his legacy was controversial because of his AIDS activism or his opinions on sex and the lifestyle of others, which the latter I don’t agree with. But I don’t think it fair that the paper of record would declare his legacy in the subhead.
