so all I see is delicious irony. He’s been demonising doctors and medical professionals, he doesn’t get to complain now that nobody’s paying attention to them.
I get this viewpoint, but it reminds me of conversations I've seen about people bodyshaming Trump.
The same logic applies: he has definitely lost any ability to complain if someone ridicules his obvious physical shortcomings. BUT: that's not why we shouldn't ridicule his weight or terrible appearance or bad health (or supposed terrible smell).
We shouldn't do that because publicly mocking people's appearances and ascribing a moral failing to bad health perpetuates harmful social behaviors that are borne by everyone other than Trump who happen to be overweight, or disabled, or have terrible diets, etc.. If one suggests that he's worth less as a person because of his age or weight and so on, they're not actually doing anything to Trump. They're just communicating to anyone who sees those comments that they think it's appropriate to bully or discriminate against others based on these traits.
Bringing it back to RFK: we live in an era of a LOT of dangerous medical misinformation. We should not share that kind of misinformation against RFK, even if doing so is funny (and deserved), because ultimately we're still just adding more shit to the same pile of shit that we're mad at him for piling up. Does that make sense?
Also, that's a good point about RFK and Israel. I don't tend to pay attention to RFK, so I sometimes forget how absolutely dogshit his opinions are. I appreciate you reminding me. He's definitely the second worst.
His previous parasitic infection is not a present day health concern. (He's an idiot, but by all accounts he was an idiot before, so we can't blame the worm for the shit he says.)
My point is that we should not promote unfounded suggestions about someone's cognitive health or promote unfounded speculation on the effect of a procedure or condition based on our preferred ideological beliefs. It's wrong when RFK does it. And it's wrong when the media does it to smear RFK. It's hypocritical and it's dangerous. "Follow the science" doesn't have a carve-out for when you want to smear people we disagree with.
It's an okay meme, but I have to admit I'm conflicted on these jokes.
First, lets just point out that Vanity Fair and everyone else who reports on JFK's brain worm but won't cover his rallies or policy announcements -- let alone Jill Stein or Cornell West's -- is just doing a political hit job on a candidate challenging the hegemony of our two terrible political parties.
Second, although I think that JFK acts like a guy who had his brain eaten by a worm, it's not really appropriate imo to propagate this impression that this is a legitimate medical concern. This parasitic infection isn't actually any more debilitating than vaccines, so I think there's a perverse hypocrisy to dwelling on it when most of us decry his irresponsible spreading of medical misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Anyway, fuck RFK, but let's be real that he's definitely not the worst candidate in the race, and it's honestly not clear whether he's even the second worst at this point.
I think this is a good breakdown of the situation, and sadly it's pretty typical Biden: one side wants pizza, the other hamburger, and he offers a pizzaburger that no one likes.
Get a spine, man. You're going to get called Hamas' favorite president by the warmongers whether you cut off one bomb or all of them, so there's no benefit to taking a symbolic stance while still allowing the operation to proceed. They can't actually do this if we cut off all bombs, but they certainly can if you just cut off 1% of their supply or whatever this is.
That said, there good news here. It's progress. After 7 months, I was of the belief that Biden was totally immune to pressure. He's pretty resilient to it, but clearly the combined effects -- both the campus protests, the civil disobedience, the constant bird dogging at every campaign event -- are moving him, and the general mainstream consensus. Let's keep that up.
First, thanks for that explanation. That's interesting.
Is there a good place to learn more? I can see why having custom feeds and 3rd party moderation tools are good, but I still have a lot questions.
First, is there a genuine benefit to dissociating a users identity from their server? I think the connection between users and their home instances are a brilliant innovation. They seem to bring village culture back to the internet. They help people associate within networks below just the global level. I think the atomization of people online has been a part of why there is so little trust.
I don't understand how any of these visions fundamentally differ from Mastodon.
Decentralized? Yep. It's got no center. Open source? Yep, you can fork it and make your own if you want. Unmoderated? Sure, if you want that, you can set up an instance and host whatever illegal content you want. You'll have a lot of legal problems and most people don't want it, but the option exists.
Is there any point besides money and crypto bullshit? If you want to post short comments that your friends can subscribe to that isn't controlled by a big corporation that gives your data to the government... well we have that. It exists. It's pretty okay. Go use it.
For those looking to better understand the biases of any given media outlet, this is a good place to drop a recommendation for Citations Needed podcast with Adam Johnson and Nima Shiraz.
It's a great media analysis and criticism show. Who watches the watchers? These fuckin guys!
What are you talking about? The occupation includes the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It predated Hamas, and continues -- brutally -- in regions in which Hamas doesn't operate.
While the war in Gaza draws attention, folks in the West Bank have had homes firebombed with children inside and watched lynch mobs run whole towns off their land with military escorts. And that doesn't even get into how Palestinian citizens of Israel are treated inside Israel. They're legal citizens, but live with curtailed rights under a literal second-class of citizenship in a police state. They get disappeared, raped, and killed in prisons without charges over social media posts criticizing the government. What the hell does that have to do with Hamas?
We need to acknowledge that all these people are living under a military apartheid system, and demand negotiations for the formation of a democratic one-state solution. We already live in a one-state reality, just without civil rights for half the population.
Also, if you follow some links in the article, Israeli divestment has been an big, ongoing movement at Brown. This isn't a flash in the pan. It's a big step forward along what has already been a long and brutal road.
It's not going away. And I truly believe that these students will win.
I would amend that to say that this is about the future and eventual end of the occupation. I think it's more material than you describe, but it's a slow process.
You know, you're welcome to disagree on tactics, but I must ask you to show a bit of respect.
These protestors put themselves in danger. They made sacrifices for a cause you care about. Time may prove their tactics to have been in error, but they are not "braindead" "idiots" who accomplished "absolutely nothing".
They know their situation better than you. They put their bodies and futures on the table, and they alone get to decide what trades they want to make. You are welcome to your opinion on what tactics others should use, and you are welcome to make your choice about what to do when it's your ass on the front lines. But I don't think you have any business talking big shit about people who are out there carrying the heavy loads.
That's a concern I share, but I think I'm the immediate moment, the activists have forced the university to break down a very significant barrier: their demands are legitimized by this. It becomes harder for other schools to justify a crackdown. And if this gets repeated, we move on to the next chapter of this story: university hearings across the country.
The goal is to change what is possible and put pressure on Israel and it's material bankers. A large number of hearings does that. Crackdowns don't really hurt the war effort or the profits of the military industrial tech complex.
It's going to require a lot more pressure, but if this is not winning this particular battle, I'm not sure what that looks like.
This article is pretty good, because it's not subtle about the context: Ben-Gvir is a convicted terrorist who has made his desire to exterminate Palestinians totally clear his whole life. And he went from too radical to serve mandatory military service to in charge of the national police and jails.
He is an exemplar of the worst humanity has to offer.
Are you telling me that if we support autocratic ethnonationalist strongmen who target minorities and political opponents with violence...
... it might hurt an American??? /s
I didn't read this article. What the hell? He's doing all this shit out in the open. It's not a darker side, it's just his front-facing side.
Hi. I'm not a doctor, but I can opine as a biologist.
The transplanted cells have blood vessels, because all cells need a supply of oxygen to avoid expiring. If they didn't have a supply of blood, they'd quickly turn necrotic.
When you deplete your short term energy stores, the body converts fat molecules within fat cells into sugar, then shuttles those through the body in the blood stream.
The body doesn't draw on fat stores within the body in a totally even way, so I don't know how quickly it would draw from the transplanted cells, but it works presumably still burn fat from these cells when needed.
And the reverse is true as well: when excess sugar is available, the body would generate new fat molecules to fill those cells, and if necessary make new fat cells as well.
Andy @ andrewrgross @slrpnk.net Posts 41Comments 1,072Joined 2 yr. ago
I get this viewpoint, but it reminds me of conversations I've seen about people bodyshaming Trump.
The same logic applies: he has definitely lost any ability to complain if someone ridicules his obvious physical shortcomings. BUT: that's not why we shouldn't ridicule his weight or terrible appearance or bad health (or supposed terrible smell).
We shouldn't do that because publicly mocking people's appearances and ascribing a moral failing to bad health perpetuates harmful social behaviors that are borne by everyone other than Trump who happen to be overweight, or disabled, or have terrible diets, etc.. If one suggests that he's worth less as a person because of his age or weight and so on, they're not actually doing anything to Trump. They're just communicating to anyone who sees those comments that they think it's appropriate to bully or discriminate against others based on these traits.
Bringing it back to RFK: we live in an era of a LOT of dangerous medical misinformation. We should not share that kind of misinformation against RFK, even if doing so is funny (and deserved), because ultimately we're still just adding more shit to the same pile of shit that we're mad at him for piling up. Does that make sense?
Also, that's a good point about RFK and Israel. I don't tend to pay attention to RFK, so I sometimes forget how absolutely dogshit his opinions are. I appreciate you reminding me. He's definitely the second worst.