dandelion (she/her)

correct, see for example the reactions to the US’s decision to invade and seize territory from Mexico, which was largely seen as a betrayal of liberal values that the country was supposedly founded on. Don’t worry, the US isn’t the only country to justify their revolution with promises of liberal ideals like freedom and equality only to expose their true priorities later (namely giving local colonial elites more power than those ruling monarchs in Europe). I recommend reading the chapter on Bolivarian revolutions from the history book Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America for more about the disappointments and failures of liberal revolutions to live up to their promises.

it’s still debated whether the anti-trans movement in the US has genocide as a goal, but I think it’s a fair characterization since the movement has explicitly stated their goal is “the eradication of [trans people] from public life”:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

since the goal is total elimination, it makes it a candidate for genocide more than other kinds of oppression, e.g. the enslavement and oppression of Africans in the US (another case some have argued as being a genocide).

the Lemkin Institute is one of the organizations arguing the anti-trans movement is genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-for-the-anti-trans-agenda-of-the-trump-administration-in-the-united-states

either way, methods like legally removing a concept of a group is a method of genocide used in the past, which is why I bring it up.

in particular it’s an example of social death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_death

ah, yes - that one basically doesn’t allow the state to recognize anything but assigned sex at birth (or some other reality-denying fabricated definition of “biological sex”), thereby eliminating trans identity - this is a form of genocide, called social death. Other states already have passed laws like this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/defining-sex-states-are-denying-transgender-people-legal-recognition-rcna140694

Looks like the bill passed the house in TX (waiting to see what the Senate votes):

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/10/texas-house-trans-bills-advance/

yes, the TX law is to declare trans people as committing the crime of “gender identity fraud”

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-bill-identify-transgender-state-felony-rcna195642

yes, exactly - criminalizing porn and the obscene is the first step in Project 2025 to genocide trans people:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17416590241312149

Pornography, he writes:

[is] manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children [. . .] It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed (Roberts, 2023: 5).

This invocation of pornography is intentionally broad, vague, and amorphous. By equating trans issues (“transgenderism” and “transgender ideology”) with pornography, child abuse, and misogyny, this vision takes one step toward the outlawing of trans people altogether. Roberts (2023) goes on to detail the draconian and restrictive mechanisms necessary for eradicating pornography and all that comes with it: “The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered” (p. 5). Such extreme rhetoric signals a no-holds barred approach to regulating gender, sexuality, and privacy. Aware that more left-leaning states would be unlikely to arrest trans people on such counts, the document later details a wider plan through which the Department of Justice would intervene and prosecute any local officials not willing to bring criminal action against LGBTQ people (Hamilton, 2023: 553).

yeah, except this is the first step in Project 2025 to genocide trans people:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17416590241312149

Pornography, he writes:

[is] manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children [. . .] It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed (Roberts, 2023: 5).

This invocation of pornography is intentionally broad, vague, and amorphous. By equating trans issues (“transgenderism” and “transgender ideology”) with pornography, child abuse, and misogyny, this vision takes one step toward the outlawing of trans people altogether. Roberts (2023) goes on to detail the draconian and restrictive mechanisms necessary for eradicating pornography and all that comes with it: “The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered” (p. 5). Such extreme rhetoric signals a no-holds barred approach to regulating gender, sexuality, and privacy. Aware that more left-leaning states would be unlikely to arrest trans people on such counts, the document later details a wider plan through which the Department of Justice would intervene and prosecute any local officials not willing to bring criminal action against LGBTQ people (Hamilton, 2023: 553).

yet very successfully at the SEO game, and a very common source linked to across Lemmy.

newsweek is a right-wing rag that promotes conspiracy theories

EDIT: here are some details:

In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had “taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders” since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine’s elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer’s opinion section and podcast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#Controversies

death is a vibe, I can dig it

you’ve heard of vibe coding, now introducing: vibe diagnosing!

yes, and in some sense it doesn’t really matter if even the founding of America conflicts with their America - they believe their America is more American. This is the reactionary mindset, that the past is best while not even having the education to know what the past was. Instead the ideals are set as an agenda by whatever the reactionary institutions say the past is, and in political movements those ideals and details often change as needed for political gains. Unfortunately this is not just exclusive to reactionaries (the Russian revolution brought about Stalin after all and the French revolution led to Napoleon), but I do tend to think reactionary minds are more quick to accept reality based on authority rather than reason or evidence, and that makes them more politically convenient as followers.

All the more reason to view the reactionaries as not really invested in any particular past or tradition, but instead as being influenced by certain groups and people - those most visible and influential often being more like grifters than theologians or stewards of tradition.

of course, but that might be part of the reason they shouted their loyalty to it all the louder

furthermore, it’s reinterpreted as a false flag or something that never really happened - there is never accountability

ContraPoints did an excellent video on conspiracy theories recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqkK0RLNkI

Question: what is the significance of /qa/, why was the board banned in the first place, and why did the hackers bring it back?

I don’t think they care about their hypocrisy, tbh - I think they view themselves as more American while dismantling America. This is just how reactionary coups work, they appeal to nationalism, but insist on reverting to an older status quo as a more authentic version of that nationalism. (It’s a re-invisioning of America in a sense.)

they’re no longer following the Constitution, in case anyone has noticed …

at what point is this not just a reactionary coup - the president’s complete disregard of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Constitution means the United States of America is over, no? I mean, whatever this government is, it’s no longer operating by the fundamental rules and laws that established this country, that define this government - this is a new, autocratic government operating by different rules.

Yup, though this isn’t an argument for why plastics are certainly dangerous. It doesn’t really matter, there are many reasons plastics are a problem, even if we don’t have that smoking gun yet on how actual plastic is hazardous. BPA, BPS, PVC, and other additives are already horrible, the reliance on plastics are part of what is destroying the earth’s climate, and these materials are not recyclable or re-usable, it’s an environmental disaster on a scale we have never seen, etc.

yeah, this is probably a bit like when people thought smoking wasn’t bad for you.

The higher concentration of microplastics are correlation studies, they don’t establish a causal link (which would be huge news and the discovery of a century). For example, the correlation could just be due to the poorer lifestyles of those who consume more microplastics (for example, they’re more common in processed and fast foods, which tend to be less healthy, for example and may also just be more common in people with lower economic status who then have less access to healthcare and more likely to die younger for a variety of reasons). The point is that they don’t have the smoking gun, yet.

We should just be clear about where we are at with the evidence, I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned or the lack of evidence is somehow exonerating or that we should be confident this isn’t a public health concern - I am very much concerned.

And of course there are lots of other reasons to avoid plastics, including its impact on the ecology and agriculture. It’s terrifying that China for example will just till plastic sheeting into the soil rather than bother to pull it up (and perhaps concerning plastic sheeting is used as a mulch in the first place, both in China and other countries like the U.S.).

I don’t know what to tell you about additives, they absolutely do make plastics without some of the known-to-be-hazardous additives, though I’m not saying that has in any way been adopted across the board or has solved the problem (I don’t know enough about that to be honest, but I’m cynical industrialists are going to give a shit).

As I understand it, plastics themselves have no known negative impact on human health - it’s the additives in the plastics that are a problem. But I don’t think the BPA hazards listed above can be fairly generalized to all microplastics.

EDIT:

from the hazards sheet:

HEALTH HAZARDS IN THERMAL PAPER WITH BISPHENOLS (BPA & BPS)

So BPA and BPS, and they’re talking about thermal paper with those in particular.

I guess this has more details about BPA hazards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_Bisphenol_A

The U.S. FDA states “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods” based on extensive research, including two more studies issued by the agency in early 2014.[2] The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed new scientific information on BPA in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2015: EFSA’s experts concluded on each occasion that they could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise their opinion that the known level of exposure to BPA is safe; however, the EFSA does recognize some uncertainties, and will continue to investigate them.

As usual, it’s highly contextual when something is a hazard and to what extent it is.