GlacialTurtle

joined 8 months ago
[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

You have 4 removed comments before the ban, the rest of your history is still very visible in your profile, so they didn’t purge your account, they removed a few comments, which is why it says, “removed by mod”. It’s funny reading your removed comments. The downvote removal is looked back on as a pretty good change. I’ve not used the site when it had downvotes, but frankly, I like that they’re gone. I don’t even know what the “main” issue is, and I’ve never heard anyone talk about it. The site has never struck me as a “Chapo” site, even though I know that is its origins. I’ve listened to the Chapo pod before, not for me, honestly. Frankly, seems that separating from the Chapo brand was the right choice.

Yes, it's been few years and I hadn't checked. I thought it had been purged entirely.

The main issue at the time was the general way admins/mods approached every issue, often in the most aggressive and hostile way imaginable and causing lots of unnecessary drama. Downvote removal and the name change of the site were part of a larger, fantastically absurd saga in which nothing was being handled well. With downvotes for example, where it was announced that any opposition to them being removed was innately transphobic, then trans users criticising this approach, only for said trans users to be banned for pushing back.

Anyway, 4 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

Not really "Holding a grudge" when I mention something directly relevant to the thread that asked about Hexbear accounts. It was just a bunch of absurd bullshit that's part of the very dumb lore of hexbear.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

When someone is banned, their posts are automatically deleted, it’s not some crazy admin obsession to ‘purge your entire history’.

Nope. That's not how it worked at the time. I even still have screenshots of being able to see banned users posts still there from around this time. My comments specifically showed "removed by mod". I just checked and I can still see a post by an alt I made shortly after being banned (which was then also banned shortly after). So no, banned users did not have their posts automatically deleted.

Proof right here even.

This story does appear to be “an admin abused their power to ban me, then that admin got banned for being caught abusing their power”. Which is not uncommon in online communities.

That is not remotely what happened. The person in question continued to be a mod for some time. Their eventual banning had nothing to do with what happened to me or others.

There were multiple mods and admins acting this way around this timeframe against many users on the site, so they'd all have had to ban themselves for the same behaviour.

Edit: Actually, now checking again, and the mods account in question doesn't even have the banned indicator, so I think they may have just deleted their account.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

I used to have an account. I was an old /r/chapotraphouse user before it got shut down.

A dipshit admin got mad when I referenced ridiculous drama that reflected badly on how the site was (and probably still is) being run, insisted to me that it didn't happen, banned me before I could even post a link or screenshot demonstrating it happened, purged my entire comment and submission history (mostly news and longer pieces I found interesting, nothing even remotely rule breaking or controversial) then proceeded to monitor the creation of new accounts to ban any usernames similar to mine as soon as they appeared.

All of the exact behaviour that would have been endlessly made fun of for being so extremely online and extremely pathetic on the old subreddit.

That admin/mod who did that is now also banned and their posts also purged lmfao. Hexbear in a nutshell.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This isn’t Reddit, you don’t have to reach boiling point just because you disagree with someone online.

Your original comment was dismissive of the realities of what happens to people seeking asylum, and your followup is to be a condescending prick spouting nonsense about reddit because someone challenged you on your dumb fucking bullshit where you didn't consider for 2 fucking seconds the actual reality of what these policies do to people.

Fuck off you disgusting cunt.

I have a German passport but my parents were “legal” immigrants from a non developed country. My wife is a “legal” immigrant (I’m not even mentioning skin colors because I think it’s a stupid way of trivializing one’s whole identity and life experience). They respected the conditions of moving to this country and they abided by them. But you call me a nazi because I don’t agree with your idea of who should be conditionally allowed in our country or not.

"I got mine so fuck you" classic children of immigrants who see nothing wrong with pulling the ladder up behind them because survivorship bias means clearly the system is good and my family is deserving and yours isn't.

Fuck off you disgusting cunt.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Go fuck yourself.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

And the conservatives scaremongering about this are definitely good faith actors who aren't just scaremongering and harassing a tiny minority of trans athletes who do not in fact represent some massive social problem that requires national level obsession with targeting and identifying trans people to harass, with Gavin Newsom hanging around with a fascist saying "yassss besty" as he literally directly refers to a specific trans athlete to target and harass them.

Another example of misplaced blame would be concerns that trans women have too much testosterone or that trans men are gaining an unfairly advantage by taking testosterone (8, 11, 56, 127). Herein lies the myth that cis men, not on gender affirming hormone therapy, will claim to be a trans women to win at female sporting events. However, trans individuals use gender affirming hormone therapy to better match their gender identity, not to gain unfair sporting advantages (132). While it is true that certain morphological changes that occur during puberty may be irreversible, trans individuals on gender affirming hormone therapy clearly do not retain the same physiologic parameters as their pre-transition counterparts (12, 15, 16, 54–56, 129). It is unclear to what extent, or for how long, any hormone mediated advantages may persist once a trans individual begins regular gender affirming hormone therapy (12, 15, 53, 56, 129). It has been shown that parameters affecting aerobic performance transition more quickly than those affecting strength performance (16, 127, 129). However, excluding trans individuals does not prevent cases of athletes having hormonal advantages. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) found 93 of the 4,422 athletes tested (2.1%) to have “adverse analytical finding” for steroid use (105). WADA does not report how many of those athletes were cis or trans, however, as transgender individuals are underrepresented in athletics, it is likely that these are cis athletes (60). Besides use of exogenous hormones, cisgender individuals naturally vary in their hormonal profiles (40, 59, 66, 133). Thus, restricting trans individuals is unlikely to prevent issues of ergogenic hormonal advantages in sports.

Finally, it is well known that within sports and athletics, competitive advantage is in large part influenced by genetic predisposition (121, 134, 135). It is accepted that some individuals are born with natural advantages, however, the suggestion that trans individuals may enjoy some advantage in certain cases is regarded as unacceptable. Yet there does not seem to be a domination of sports by trans athletes if their advantage is so great. When examining issues that allegedly arise by trans athletes' participation in sports and athletics, the solutions are more driven by a political/cultural divide rather than an honest attempt to actually mitigate inequities or risk of injuries that are occurring (1, 136).

[...]

Individuals should not have to make a choice between being their authentic selves or being athletes (138). While trans athletes competing in various sports and athletic events raises interesting considerations of how certain morphologic and physiologic factors affect performance, these questions are not exclusive to trans individuals. There are wide variations within cisgender populations, even when excluding individuals with differences in sexual development (121, 139). It is expected that about 2.3% of a normally distributed population is likely to fall above two standard deviations from a population mean. These exceptional individuals may be those who are gifted and excel at some sport or athletic performance (121, 135, 140). In contrast only 0.5%–0.6% of the population identify as trans (60). There is no concern for restricting individuals who are exceptionally large or small, those who are genetically gifted, or those with differing hormone concentrations or muscle mass, so long as their gender and biologic sex align (120, 121). The disproportionate focus on the relatively small portion of the population who are trans seems based on the belief that cis men, who cannot succeed in sports among other cis men, would choose to misidentify as trans women to gain an advantage in sports against cis women. However, there are no legitimate cases of this occurring. An individual's sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition. This can be demonstrated when looking at not average outcomes, but the level of overlap among outcomes. The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy. Finally, if it is found that trans individuals have advantages in certain athletic events or sports; in those cases, there will still be a question of whether this should be considered unfair, or accepted as another instance of naturally occurring variability seen in athletes already participating in these events.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

There is no legitimate debate. It's scaremongering.

But sure, "complicated issues" requires paling around with a fascist like Charlie Kirk and talking about how he's correct, backing down immediately when challenged on using "weaponize" to accurately describe conservative attacks on trans people and being asked to target and harass specific trans athletes based on nothing.

Just like "complicated issues" requires reaffirming conservative framing of immigration and adopting language about how immigrants are stealing welfare money and smuggling gangs requires further militarisation of borders and out of country processing of immigrants.

You're the useful idiot that the thin end of the wedge is for.

 

Democrats playing footsy with fascist Charlie Kirk over hating trans people. This is the party that's supposed to be the great defenders of LGBT people?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a pioneer for LGBTQ+ rights who decades ago upset leaders in his own party when he defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, suggested Democrats were in the wrong in allowing transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports.

“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said in his debut podcast episode of “This is Gavin Newsom.” “I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.”

Newsom’s comments on the issue roiling political debates nationwide came in a conversation with influential MAGA-world figure Charlie Kirk, the campus culture warrior who leads the organization Turning Point USA and is a close ally of President Donald Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr.

Newsom also agreed that the most politically destructive attack ads from Trump’s campaign featured Kamala Harris’ support for providing taxpayer-funded gender transition-related medical care for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.

“She didn’t even react to it, which was even more devastating,” Newsom said, suggesting upward of 90 percent of Americans disagreed with Harris’ position. “Then you had the video [of Harris] as a validator. Brutal,” Newsom added. “It was a great ad.”

Kirk challenged Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, to speak out against AB Hernandez, a transgender high school track star from California whose triple jump event in the women’s competition is drawing fierce backlash from the right. Newsom said he has four children of his own — including two daughters — and noted that both he and his wife participated in college-level sports, she in soccer and he in baseball.

“I revere sports, so the issue of fairness is completely legit,” Newsom said. “And I saw that — the last couple years, boy did I [see] how you guys were able to weaponize that issue at another level.”

Kirk challenged Newsom over his use of the word “weaponize,” and Newsom replaced it with “highlight.”

 

The video is yet another case of Democrats resenting their base for expecting them to stand up for anything.

In a leaked recording, State Senator Elena Parent (D-42) said she’d vote for Republican transgender healthcare bans because trans rights are too “unpopular."

"You can go right to heck. I don’t think I will lose re-election based on you screaming at me"

The insane flipping back and forth in the video of declaring yourself pro-lgbt whilst signalling you'll vote for anti-trans legislation, to then attack the person asking them obvious questions by declaring that the question implies because Republicans are in charge that they should adopt opposite positions and they're not going to vote for things that are "unpopular".

The democratic politician distilled: You need to vote for me because I support you and I'm not as bad as Republicans, but when it comes down to it I will throw you under the bus and get mad at you for asking me about it and implying I might not be a good person.

But swearing is a no-no so I'll say Heck as I support you being oppressed by the state.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 months ago

The 3 sample bullets are vapid and meaningless at best. "Not being ashamed of your country" = stop talking about and stop doing anything about racism and sexism and bigotry. "own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities" has no detail, but it's Third Way so that will be "immigrants are bad and we need more homeless sweeps and subsidies and tax cuts for businesses".

See e.g.

Advocate for middle-class tax cuts, support public education, and propose spending cuts where needed.

Tax and budget cuts but somehow support public education.

Democrats need to stop demonizing wealth and corporations broadly.

Literally some of the most broadly popular rhetoric and language but this is the one they feel the need to not do.

Engage with small businesses, business podcasts, podcasts like “Earn Your Leisure” that reach the aspiring class, and entrepreneurs to discuss economic policies

Hand over even more of democratic policy to the rich and upper classes while claiming to stand up for working people somehow.

  1. Be Pro-Aspiration & Pro-Capitalism in a Smart Way
  • Recognize that working-class voters value upward mobility and economic success.
  • Have a prosperity gospel aimed at the working class.
  • Call out corporate abuses individually instead of attacking “corporations” as a whole.

Meaningless drivel that is largely what Democrats are already doing.

Use messengers that working-class voters trust—business leaders, skilled laborers, and community figures.

lmao business leaders.

But they'll do it all with a big hat and a folksy accent hootin' and hollerin' at a gun show this time.

 

This is at the same time as Israel has been stopping entry of all goods and supplies into Gaza. The deputy speaker of Israeli parliament is also calling for the bombing of food stocks in Gaza by the way.

The EU condemns the refusal of Hamas to accept the extension of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza. Israel's subsequent decision to block the entry of all humanitarian aid into Gaza could potentially result in humanitarian consequences.

The EU calls for a rapid resumption of negotiations on the second phase of the ceasefire, and expresses its strong support to the mediators.

A permanent ceasefire would contribute to the release of all remaining Israeli hostages while ensuring the necessary conditions for recovery and reconstruction in Gaza to begin. All parties have a political responsibility to make this a reality.

The EU reiterates its calls for full, rapid, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid at scale for Palestinians in need and for allowing and facilitating humanitarian workers and international organisations to operate effectively and safely inside Gaza.

The EU civilian Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) is ready to continue its work if requested by the parties. Thanks to its presence, nearly 3,000 people have so far crossed the border into Egypt since 1 February.

Meanwhile:

The deputy speaker of Israel’s parliament and a leading member of Netanyahu’s party calling for the bombing of food stocks in Gaza just a few hours ago.

You won’t see this mentioned by any European or American leaders, or by most western media.

https://bsky.app/profile/mehdirhasan.bsky.social/post/3ljfehifmrc2e

Israel claims it's a US plan but has not confirmed it.

Matt Duss, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Al Jazeera that he had “very good reason to disbelieve” what Netanyahu had said about US support for Israel’s unilateral decision to not proceed to the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal.

Netanyahu had called the proposal for the extension of the first phase of the deal the “Witkoff plan”, in reference to the US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, but Duss said that “as far as I’ve been able to tell, this is in fact the Netanyahu plan”.

Duss said that it was uncertain how much support Netanyahu had from Trump, but that if the US administration was backing Israel in reneging on the terms of the ceasefire deal, it would be a continuation of US policy under Trump’s predecessor President Joe Biden, where US officials would insist that Hamas was the party not agreeing to a ceasefire, even when the opposite was true.

“I very much hope that Netanyahu is not telling the truth, because the terms of the deal are that phase one would continue as negotiations for phase two are worked out,” Duss said, before adding that Witkoff’s next moves would shed more light on the US position.

https://aje.io/86m0jg?update=3549731

Outrage as Israel cuts off Gaza aid to pressure Hamas to accept new ceasefire proposal

Also I had to log on to reddit and see a photo op of Euro leaders on the front page with the caption "leaders of the free world" and people glazing Keir Starmer I guess because Ukraine.

 

Yet more Democrats doubling down on "we have to be more racist", "we need to have less principles", "it's actually the lefts fault somehow".

Reminder that here in reality, Democrats ran republican campaign messaging during the election whilst Kamala failed to distance herself from literal fucking genocide in response to the bases concerns nor did they provide any meaningful economic policies as answers.

When several dozen Democratic political operatives and elected officials gathered at a tony resort off the Potomac River last month, frustration boiled over at the left wing of their party.

Democrats had become too obsessed with “ideological purity tests” and should push back “against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging,” according to a document of takeaways from the gathering produced by the center-left group Third Way and obtained by POLITICO.

The group of moderate Democratic consultants, campaign staffers, elected officials and party leaders who gathered in Loudoun County, Virginia for a day-and-a-half retreat, where they plotted their party’s comeback, searched for why the party lost in November — and what to do about it. Much of what they focused their ire on centered on the kind of identity politics that they believed lost them races up and down the ballot.

One of the key ways to win back the trust of the working class, some gathered there argued, was to “reduce far-left influence and infrastructure” on the party, according to the takeaways document. That included building a more moderate campaign infrastructure and talent pipeline, pushing “back against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging,” and refusing to participate in “far-left candidate questionnaires” and “forums that create ideological purity tests.”

The gathering resulted in five pages of takeaways, a document POLITICO obtained from one of the participants. (Not all attendees endorsed each point, and the document — and Third Way — kept the identities of participants private.)

[...]

Those gathered then laid out 20 solutions for how Democrats can regain working-class trust and reconnect with them culturally.

Among their takeaways:

  • The party should “embrace patriotism, community, and traditional American imagery.”

  • Candidates should “get out of elite circles and into real communities (e.g., tailgates, gun shows, local restaurants, churches).”

  • The party needs to “own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities and commit to improving local government.”

The party, many of those gathered also argued, needs to “develop a stronger, more relatable Democratic media presence (podcasts, social media, sports broadcasting).”

Bennett said that, with the meeting coming just three months after the election, “we didn’t expect to have a lot of answers about exactly what the Democratic offer to the working class on the economy ought to be going forward. We were still kind of picking through the rubble here.”

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In a perfect world, people would stop feeling the need to redirect every criticism of Democrats into pointing out how someone else must be worse, and maybe realise Democrats as they exist and as the party is structured is an almost useless vehicle for any meaningful change or opposition.

In a perfect world, liberals would stop idealising Democrats in the way they did in the post I was responding to, where they implied the Democratic alternative would save lives, after that party literally full throatedly endorsed genocide right up until they lost the election (and still do).

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The thread is talking about how it ought to be acceptable to criticise the Democratic party, and the reality of what you're doing is needlessly deflecting back to Republicans in a context in which it's irrelevant.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

What the fuck are you on about? What do you think you're responding to?

 

A remarkable set of declarations from current and former employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau detail Acting Director Russ Vought’s scheme to illegally eliminate the agency, and the consequences for thousands of CFPB employees and millions of consumers left vulnerable to predatory financial scams.

The fourteen declarations, filed on Thursday in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, provide an unusually direct window into how the Trump administration sought to cripple an agency that has returned more than $21 billion to consumers over its lifespan. And the employees call out CFPB’s current chief operating officer, Adam Martinez, for lying in his declaration to the court that the agency is just going through a normal transition process in the transfer of political power.

CFPB has been under a “stop work” order since Vought took over the agency on an acting basis. No work has been performed and employees are on paid leave; the order was characterized as a work stoppage to get around federal employment laws limiting administrative leave to ten days in a calendar year. Seven outstanding enforcement cases were dismissed in the past week; the latest was a case against Trans Union.

One employee, who used the pseudonym “Alex Doe” for fear of retaliation, recounted personal experience of a February 13 meeting between CFPB leadership and the Office of Personnel Management, where a three-step process was discussed. First, all probationary and “term employees” (which have a fixed term of employment) would be fired, which occurred that day. Then, entire offices, divisions, and units would be let go, a culling of roughly 1,200 employees, which was supposed to happen the next day, on Valentine’s Day. Finally, the bureau would “reduce altogether” 60 to 90 days later.

According to another declaration, the intention was to fire everyone but five statutory positions named specifically in the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the agency. “One Senior Executive said that CFPB will become a ‘room at Treasury, White House, or Federal Reserve with five men and a phone in it,’ the declaration reads.

A second pseudonymous employee who attended the February 13 meeting declared that Martinez described the CFPB as in “wind down mode,” and that all “statutorily-required functions would be transferred to other agencies.” This is illegal without an act of Congress. That employee also described an email dated February 11, where the chief financial officer of CFPB, Jafnar Gueye, was described as discussing with the Federal Reserve how to return CFPB’s funds back to the central bank. (CFPB is funded entirely through the Federal Reserve.)

 

Certain Democrats remain inexplicably in denial about Biden and his brain leaking out of his ears during a live debate and even internal polling showing repeatedly he was almost certainly going to lose badly.

Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre lambasted Democratic leadership for attacking Joe Biden like a “firing squad” at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics forum Wednesday, saying the party should have united behind the former president.

“I have never seen anything like that,” she said. “It was truly, truly unfortunate. And I think it hurt us more than folks realized to have done that.”

Jean-Pierre attended a discussion with spring IOP fellow Brittany Shepherd and Anoushka Chander ’25 — her first public event since leaving the White House in January.

Jean-Pierre stood by Biden’s achievements, his cognitive fitness, and his decision to run for re-election during the talk. She echoed statements from Michael C. Donilon — a senior advisor to Biden and a current IOP fellow — who defended the former president on the same stage just two weeks ago.

“I believe in what we were trying to get done,” Jean-Pierre said. “I would not have come back into the administration, I don’t think, for anybody else.”

And from Donilon's talk:

Michael C. Donilon, the chief strategist behind Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign, said Democratic leadership “lost its mind” when they ousted Biden from the party’s ticket, arguing he was their best chance at keeping the White House.

“The Democratic primary voters chose Joe Biden to be the nominee of the Democratic Party,” said Donilon, a spring fellow at the Institute of Politics. “The Democratic party leadership, and the biggest funders in America, didn’t.”

In a wide-ranging post mortem at the IOP Thursday evening, Donilon remained adamant that the former president would “still be the best” for the job – despite his poor performance in a June debate.

“Lots of people have terrible debates,” he said. “Usually, the party doesn’t lose its mind. But that’s what happened — it just melted down.”

Donilon, a member of Biden’s inner circle for over 40 years, denounced claims that the president’s acuity and judgment declined as an “impression” perpetuated by the media.

“It was getting written as this fact, ‘Oh, Biden was mentally impaired,’” Donilon said. “I don’t know how much time any of those people spent with him — I know how much time I spent with him. I know what I saw.”

Reminder the White House spent his second term limiting access to Biden, not showing him negative polling and negative stories, and denying there were any problems until he turned a question on abortion into incoherent mumbling about immigrants murdering women.

 

Excerpt:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has ordered the digital and physical destruction of 18 publications on workplace safety practices, according to an internal February 7 email obtained by Popular Information. The email says the publications have been removed from the OSHA website and tells staff that any physical copies should be "disposed of or recycled."

The purge appears to be part of the Trump administration's effort to terminate any activities associated with "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility," or DEIA. The email advises OSHA staff that "[i]f you have wallet cards that include language, or can be interpreted, on DEIA or gender ideology, please dispose of them as well."

Popular Information has obtained archived versions of most of the deleted publications. Almost all of them are not associated with DEIA topics but appear to have been targeted because they include a DEIA-related keyword used in a completely different context.

For example, one of the purged publications is "OSHA Best Practices for Protecting EMS Responders During Treatment and Transport of Victims of Hazardous Substance Releases." Popular Information was able to obtain an archived version of the publication through the Internet Archive. The 104-page document — a collaboration between dozens of government agencies and NGOs — was published in 2009 to detail the steps "employers need to take to protect their EMS responders from becoming additional victims while on the front line of medical response." DEIA issues are not discussed.

On page 94 of the publication, however, the words "diversity" and "diverse" are used in a context that has nothing to do with race or gender. The publication notes there is a "diversity of state-specific certification, training, and regulatory requirements" for "EMS agencies" and "diverse conditions under which EMS responders could work." Similarly, on page 96, the publication notes, "EMS responders are a diverse group" and "risks vary with their primary and secondary roles."

"Guidelines for Nursing Homes: Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders," is a 44-page publication released in 2009. It provides "recommendations for nursing home employers to help reduce the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in their facilities." It has nothing to do with DEIA. On page 10, however, it notes that "development of MSDs may be related to genetic causes, gender, age, and other factors." The single use of the word "gender" appears to have flagged the publication for deletion and destruction.

Another purged publication, "Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respiratory Protection Standard," contains the sentence, "[t]he new computer software reflects the concept of government leadership through collaboration with diverse technical organizations." It has nothing to do with DEIA.

 

Remember when Labour claimed "This isn’t factional. We just aren’t insulting voters with piss poor candidates anymore."

WhatsApp group chat has been exposed with Labour MP's and Councillors often posting abusive, ableist, sexist and derogatory comments.

Several MP's, including Health Minister Andrew Gwynne, whose office caseworker had setup the chat, have now been suspended.

Unsurprisingly, the group chat contains lots of ire for the left wing of party (what's left of it anyway...), including the usual thing of naming everyone even marginally to the left of them as "trots" ( short for Trotskyists). Although this is just inline with what was already exposed in the leaked report intended to investigate the handling of antisemitism complaints, before also finding internal emails and WhatsApp group chats that exposed the same sort of racist, sexist, and highly factional abuse from the right wing of the labour party. A literal conspiracy within Labour to deliberately undermine the complaints process, to then use against Corbyn in the media, which included people who had presented themselves as "whistleblowers" against Labours supposed antisemitism.

Gwynne, 50, had managed to dodge most controversies during his near 20-year stint in parliament, although rose to brief fame for calling Boris Johnson a “pillock” on live television in 2017.

The real political danger, it seems, came not from Westminster but from his constituency 200 miles away on the edge of Manchester, where long-simmering Labour party divisions have now burst into the open.

The WhatsApp group where Labour figures posted racist, sexist and homophobic comments was centred on Gwynne’s power base in the town of Denton in Tameside, where he was elected as a local councillor almost 30 years ago at the age of 21.

Labour insiders said the local party’s “toxic” fallouts were well known in the region. They were not surprised that Gwynne’s inner circle was the subject of the highly damaging leaks, which first emerged in the Mail on Sunday.

“You would turn up at an event and they would be slagging off the other side,” said one senior Labour figure in Greater Manchester. “Any time we were in a party setting with Andrew Gwynne and some of those people, they would just be slagging off the people they didn’t like.

“You get a bit of that in politics but they were probably the worst at it in terms of the Greater Manchester scene.”

The Guardian has seen more than 1,000 pages of WhatsApp messages, spanning 2019 to 2022, in which the sacked minister joked about the death of an elderly voter and a cycling campaigner, who he hoped would be “mown down” by a lorry.

He also said someone “sounds too Jewish” and “too militaristic”, apparently from their name alone.

In newly disclosed messages, Gwynne described a constituent as “an illiterate removed” and a fellow councillor as a “fat middle-aged useless thicket”. He called neighbouring MP Navendu Mishra, a “splitter” for forming a group of leftwing Labour MPs in 2022.

The group, named Trigger Me Timbers, was set up by Gwynne’s office caseworker Claire Reid in January 2019. At its height it had 44 members, most of whom were local councillors and activists.

The forum was initially set up to discuss routine party business, such as local events and campaign literature. But it soon turned “nasty”, according to one Labour figure.

The group’s ire was reserved for leftwing Labour activists, whom they refer to more than 100 times as “trots”.

When Christian Wakeford defected from the Conservatives to Labour in January 2022, Ryan – then a local councillor – joked about “all the trots exploding on socials”.

Gwynne said “the nutty wing” of a local party “is going bonkers that we’ve let a Tory have the Labour whip and not Jezza” – a reference to Jeremy Corbyn, who was suspended by the party.

Reid, now a senior official on Labour’s national policy forum, said of the party’s leftwing membership: “Aside from anything else today it’s very good for the internal Party! Hopefully they’ll all leave”, to which Gwynne replied: “Yep.”

While Gwynne and Ryan are the most high profile to be suspended by Labour, Reid and two other senior councillors – George Newton and Jack Naylor – have stepped down from their cabinet positions on Tameside council amid an investigation by party HQ.

Gwynne’s wife, Allison Gwynne, who posted in the group about local children who have “always enjoyed swimming in street rubbish/raw sewage”, is understood to remain in her role as chair of the council’s overview panel – a position she is believed to have been awarded by Labour HQ.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/10/vile-labourwhatsapp-group-exposes-toxic-divisions-in-andrew-gwynnes-power-base

As first revealed by the Mail On Sunday, Gwynne was accused of posting messages containing racist and sexist comments. The cache of thousands of messages spans a period from 2019 to 2022.

Gwynne is also alleged to have sent messages suggesting a local cycling campaigner should be “mown down” by a lorry, and hoping a pensioner who didn’t vote Labour “croaks it” before an election.

[...]

One senior member of the Tameside Labour group said the party was “in chaos” and some were “fuming” at being suspended.

“I know from talking to councillors some of them are fuming because they’re being associated with those vile posts. Just by their suspension it looks like they’ve been involved but they’ve never posted anything on that group,” they said.

“Tameside Labour is in chaos now. We’ve got to consider the position of the leader because she appointed those people [Gwynne’s allies] to cabinet positions just a few months ago, with the blessing of the national party. This is completely untenable.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/11/labour-suspends-12-members-who-joined-offensive-whatsapp-group

 

Direct link to letter/press release:

https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/dear-colleague-rapid-response-task-force-and-litigation-working-group

Original Twitter/X link in case nitter instance fails/goes down:

https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1889692684178108688

Dear Colleague:

I write with respect to our ongoing effort to push back against the far-right extremism that is being relentlessly unleashed on the American people.

We are engaged in a multifaceted struggle to protect and defend everyday Americans from the harm being inflicted by this administration. As outlined last week, it’s an all hands on deck effort simultaneously underway in Congress, the Courts and the Community.

In connection with this effort, House Democrats have formally established a Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group. I have asked Assistant Leader Joe Neguse to chair the Task Force, which will be co-chaired by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, Gerry Connolly and Jamie Raskin. If you are interested in participating, please contact Rep. Neguse or one of the co-Chairs this week.

House Democrats are committed to driving down the high cost of living for everyday Americans. We recognize that there are far too many people in this country struggling to live paycheck to paycheck. That’s not acceptable in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. In this regard, we will continue to solve problems for hardworking American taxpayers in order to improve their quality of life.

Last year, Republicans repeatedly promised to make life more affordable for everyday Americans. Apparently, they didn’t mean it. House Republicans and the administration have done nothing to lower the high cost of living. The cost of groceries is skyrocketing. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to launch far-right attacks on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public safety and the education of our children. The American people are counting on us to stop them.

Thank you for your continued leadership during this perilous moment. Together, we press on for the people.

Sincerely,

Hakeem Jeffries Democratic Leader

 

Democrats are mad that their base are demanding and expecting them to at least try to do something.

For some reason Axios posted like at least 3 variations of the same story:

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/06/democrats-congress-trump-musk-doge-calls

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/12/democrats-grassroots-groups-moveon-indivisible

Why it matters: Members of the Steering and Policy Committee — with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in the room — on Monday complained activist groups like MoveOn and Indivisible have facilitated thousands of phone calls to members' offices.

  • "People are pissed," a senior House Democrat who was at the meeting said of lawmakers' reaction to the calls.
  • The Democrat said Jeffries himself is "very frustrated" at the groups, who are trying to stir up a more confrontational opposition to Trump.
  • A Jeffries spokesperson disputed that characterization and noted to Axios that their office regularly engages with dozens of stakeholder groups, including MoveOn and Indivisible, including as recently as Monday

Zoom in: "There were a lot of people who were like, 'We've got to stop the groups from doing this.' ... People are concerned that they're saying we're not doing enough, but we're not in the majority," said one member.

  • Some Democrats see the callers as barking up the wrong tree given their limited power as the minority party in Congress: "It's been a constant theme of us saying, 'Please call the Republicans,'" said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).
  • "I reject and resent the implication that congressional Democrats are simply standing by passively," said Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).

The other side: "People are angry, scared, and they want to see more from their lawmakers right now than floor speeches about Elon Musk," Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg told Axios.

  • "Indivisible is urging people who are scared to call their member of Congress, whether they have a Democrat or Republican, and make specific procedural asks," Greenberg said.
  • "Our supporters are asking Democrats to demand specific red lines are met before they offer their vote to House Republicans on the budget, when Republicans inevitably fail to pass a bill on their own."

Reminder that Richie "I reject and resent the implication" Torres spent the election trying to get the political streamer Hasan Piker banned for antisemitism (read: criticising Israel).

I also remind dipshit Democrat defenders to hold Democrats to account. They ran a failed election campaign. They decided adhering to genocide was more important than winning. This is how they respond to their base expecting literally anything of them, is to resent them and tell them to shut the fuck up and plead there isn't anything they can do so they just have to roll over.

 

The Democrats are gonna try a brand new strategy they've never done before: cosying up to oligarchs and moving to the """centre""" (read: becoming more right wing than they were already getting)

Excerpts:

In Northern California, Jeffries and Rep. Sam Liccardo, the freshman Democrat who represents part of Silicon Valley, were working to stem further defections and to rally Democratic-leaning donors to their side. To the crowd, which included several major Democratic bundlers, as well as California Reps. Jimmy Panetta, Mike Levin and George Whitesides, Jeffries described his party’s efforts to push back on Trump and outlined their campaign to retake the House in 2026, according to four people who attended the event and were granted anonymity to describe a private meeting.

“The singular focus was — how do we ensure Silicon Valley remains with Democrats,” said one of the people who participated, “because, right now, Silicon Valley is feeling very purple.”

Jeffries’ appearance was the Democratic leader’s first Silicon Valley swing after the 2024 election and in the run-up to the midterm elections — an early overture at a meeting where no donation was required to attend. And it was no accident he trekked to the nation’s tech capital. In Washington, Democrats in recent days have been lacing into Musk as he wreaks havoc on the federal government, viewing him as a more polarizing — and less popular — foil than Trump. But the moneyed tech world that Musk hails from is critical to Democrats’ fortunes in 2026.

There is a significant fear that these tech folks, who have been with us for a long time, will say, ‘fuck it, we’re going with the other guys,’” said Alex Hoffman, a Democratic donor adviser who works with donors across the country but did not attend the event. “These donors are also pissed, watching former and current colleagues have unlimited, unchecked power, and getting richer off of this and they’re not.”

Democrats are “trying to mend fences and they’re also trying to keep them in the tent,” Hoffman added.

[...]

High-dollar donor frustration — and the problem it presents for Democrats — isn’t limited to California. Across the country, “the mood is tense” among Democratic donors, said another top Democratic fundraiser, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly.

Democrats are on their heels as Trump steamrolls the government, seemingly unchecked. “Everyone wants to know: What can you do about what I just saw Trump do on TV, and why did we end up here?” the fundraiser said.

In Silicon Valley, Jeffries did not independently raise tech issues, despite facing a room anxious to hear how Democrats might approach AI and crypto policies in the next Congress, several people who attended said. A second person who attended the event said they were frustrated that much of Jeffries’ comments focused on Trump.

“When will we move off this posture of complaining and moaning about Trump,” the person said. “What positive ideas will Democrats offer to people to bring people back in?”

That person said Jeffries has time to assuage Democratic-leaning tech leaders and “reestablish strong ties with the tech community.” However, the attendee said, “there’s work that needs to be done, and that begins with an acknowledgement that this last campaign was not their best work.”

[...]

The group included several top tech executives, including DocuSign CEO Allan Thygesen, Box CEO Aaron Levie, Bloom Energy CEO K.R. Sridhar and Cooper Teboe, a major Democratic donor adviser in Silicon Valley. Robert Klein and Danielle Guttman Klein, major Democratic donors, hosted it at their home in Los Altos Hills.

In his remarks, Jeffries concentrated on how Democrats planned to retake the House in 2026. He said Democrats were reaching toward the center, while Trump will swing harder right, according to the first attendee, who took notes on the presentation. Jeffries also highlighted how California Democrats helped the party net two more House seats in 2024, as well as the role the state will play in their efforts to flip the House, according to the fourth person who was in the room.

He also told the crowd that Democrats needed to pick their fights. It’s a mantra Jeffries has invoked before, comparing the party’s strategy to the New York Yankees’ Aaron Judge, who is “not going to swing at every pitch,” the Democratic leader said.

Also notable that even rich donors have more willingness to suggest Democrats ran a bad campaign than your average r/politics or .world user.

 

Excerpts:

The Israeli army intensively bombarded residential areas in Gaza when it lacked intelligence on the exact location of Hamas commanders hiding underground, and intentionally weaponized toxic byproducts of bombs to suffocate militants in their tunnels, an investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call can reveal.

The investigation, based on conversations with 15 Israeli Military Intelligence and Shin Bet officers who have been involved in tunnel-targeting operations since October 7, exposes how this strategy aimed to compensate for the army’s inability to pinpoint targets in Hamas’ subterranean tunnel network. When targeting senior commanders in the group, the Israeli military authorized the killing of “triple-digit numbers” of Palestinian civilians as “collateral damage,” and maintained close real-time coordination with U.S. officials regarding the expected casualty figures.

Some of these strikes, which were the deadliest in the war and often used American bombs, are known to have killed Israeli hostages despite concerns raised ahead of time by military officers. Moreover, the lack of precise intelligence meant that in at least three major strikes, the army dropped several 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that killed scores of civilians — part of a strategy known as “tiling” — without succeeding in killing the intended target.

“Pinpointing a target inside a tunnel is hard, so you attack a [wide] radius,” a Military Intelligence source told +972 and Local Call. Given that the army would have only a vague approximation of the target’s location, the source explained, this radius would be as large as “tens and sometimes hundreds of meters,” meaning these bombing operations collapsed multiple apartment buildings on their occupants without warning. “Suddenly you see how someone in the IDF really behaves when given the opportunity to wipe out an entire residential block — and they do it,” the source added.

[...]

In January 2024, a spokesperson for the Israeli army told +972 and Local Call in response to a previous investigation that it “has never used and does not currently use byproducts of bomb deployment to harm its targets, and there is no such ‘technique’ in the IDF.” Yet our new investigation reveals that the Air Force conducted physio-chemical research on the effect of the gas in enclosed spaces, and the military has deliberated over the method’s ethical implications.

Three Israeli hostages — Nik Beizer, Ron Sherman, and Elia Toledano — were definitively killed by asphyxiation as a result of a Nov. 10, 2023, bombing that targeted Ahmed Ghandour, a Hamas brigade commander in northern Gaza. The army told their families that, at the time of the bombing, it was unaware that hostages were being held near Ghandour. However, three sources with knowledge of the strike, which was led by the Shin Bet, told +972 and Local Call there was “ambiguous” intelligence indicating that hostages might be in the vicinity, yet the attack was still authorized.

According to six sources, this was not an isolated case but one of “dozens” of Israeli airstrikes that likely endangered or killed hostages. They described how the military command greenlighted attacks on the homes of suspected kidnappers and the tunnels from which senior Hamas figures were directing the fighting.

While attacks were aborted when there was specific, definitive intelligence indicating the presence of a hostage, the army routinely authorized strikes when the intelligence picture was murky and there was a “general” likelihood that hostages were present in the vicinity of a target. “Mistakes definitely happened, and we bombed hostages,” one intelligence source said.

Israel’s efforts to maximize the chances of killing senior militants hiding underground also included attempts to crush parts of a tunnel network and trap the targets inside. Sources described incidents where vehicles fleeing an attack site were bombed without specific intelligence about who was inside, based on the assumption that a senior Hamas figure might be trying to escape.

“The entire region felt and heard the explosions,” Abdel Hadi Okal, a Palestinian journalist from Jabalia who witnessed several major Israeli bombing operations — which Palestinians often refer to as “fire belts” — during the early weeks of the war, told +972 and Local Call. “Entire residential blocks were targeted with heavy missiles, causing buildings to collapse and fall on top of each other. Ambulances and Civil Defense vehicles were unable to contend with the scale of the bombardment, so people had to use their hands and some light equipment to pull bodies from under the rubble of houses. There was no possibility for anyone to survive.”

view more: ‹ prev next ›