I’m sure there’s an in-depth reason for it, but there is one that scrapes Old Reddit, instead of the main site, and it works great for me (Stealth on f-droid). There’s also RedReader, a client that was allowed to keep API access because of it’s accessibility features… which I guess Reddit just couldn’t be bothered to implement into their own app.

I mean if her rallying for Biden means campaigning for him, I honestly think that she particularly has every good reason not to do that. Tlaib is a Palestinian American, and Biden has openly contributed billions directly to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza, going so far as to bypass congress to do so, all while he and nearly every other Dem continue to refuse to acknowledge that Israel’s actions constitute anything “messed up,” much less full-on genocide.

I cannot stress enough that if, in the face of Biden’s continuing contributions to the genocide of her family’s country of origin, it is an ethical impossibility for her to publically endorse him for a second term, that is completely on him, not on her.

Found an article that pinned an update - she was suspended for 45 minutes. Weird.

https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/02/20/x-formerly-twitter-suspends-yulia-navalnaya-s-account

deleted by creator

Though not as high risk as being a logger, a fishing worker, a pilot, a roofer, a general construction worker, any job driving a car or semi, any agricultural laborer, and certain types of maintenance work, among a few others.*

This process is already gatekept, to my knowledge. In my state, changing your legal gender id or name requires going through the courts and a substantial amount of legal paperwork - even if you do so without a lawyer, there are some substantial fees associated with that process. Not to mention if someone wanted to become less identifiable, they probably wouldn’t want to do that in a way that is available as public record. Personally, I’d probably just get a haircut - they’re a lot faster and a lot cheaper.

Additionally, banning everyone - especially banning exclusively trans people - from fixing their documentation is not a reasonable solution to your hypothetical problem, a fact so obvious anyone arguing in good faith almost certainly would have caught it.

Israel ≠ Jews. What is happening in Gaza is the fault of the fascist government of Israel, not “the Jews” - that is an actual neonazi talking point.

Nah plenty of rich people have been deepfaked, this is probably getting addressed because of her massive and obsessive fanbase.

I’m currently nonreligious, but there are hundreds of people that have influenced my personal philosophies. But despite the things I believe having come from or been influenced by other people, I still consider my beliefs to be my own. Why should the beliefs of religious or spiritual people be viewed any differently?

Surviving in a “hard situation” resembles suffering much more closely than it does strength.

That flower is not surviving pinned under rubble for the sake of inspiring the flowers that are not, nor for the sake of “becoming stronger” - it is surviving because until someone bothers to remove the boulders that are crushing it, its options are to survive or to die. And plenty of flowers in that same situation would die, and its actually not out of the question that this flower’s eventual death will be due to these conditions that it is forced to endure.

Knowing that, would you still compliment the flower on its strength, on the fact that it has not yet been killed, before considering that maybe, just maybe, you and the other flowers might want to find a way to do something about those boulders that would have already killed any weaker flower?

One should not prioritize complimenting the systematically abused for surviving their undue suffering above working to prevent that undue suffering from continuing. Their suffering and tragedy should not be repurposed as inspiration porn.

That was the deal Hamas offered them days ago - Netanyahu refused it.

Laws like this one (as well as far right fear mongering in general) misrepresent that situation even more than you’d think. Only 800 minors in the country (out of ~80 million depending on how you count, so ~0.001% of all US minors) got any transition related surgeries over the course of 2 years. On top of that, there aren’t a lot of surgeons who do these surgeries, and some of them won’t operate on minors. So because of the limited number of surgeons, trans people often have to travel across at least state lines to get these surgeries, which is why none of this very small population of minors even got their surgeries in Ohio.

These laws are made all the more sinister when you realize half of their content outlaws things that aren’t even happening entirely for the sake of feeding into bigoted fear mongering and dehumanization - “they’re coming for your kids.”

Why would that work? At this point, the majority of people comfortable continuing to vote Republican after an attempted coup, the repeal of Roe, and an avalanche of explicitly harmful and bigoted legislation are die-hard reactionaries and Trump supporters, and the Republican primaries seem to be reflecting that. Nikki Haley is the closest thing we have to a center-right candidate, and her odds of beating Trump right now are pretty slim. The political right has been bleeding public support for a while now, and Trump is the only thing that’s been giving them momentum and wins - dropping him is desirable to at least some of the party, but it probably isn’t an actual option.

And even if they did drop Trump, like… they’re probably not going to course correct at this point. Enacting christofascism and appealing to reactionaries is looking more and more like the only hope for a future the party has left, and they’ll likely continue down that path with or without Trump. “Bringing Trump to justice” is still worthwhile, but on a number of levels, it will not suddenly make the party of the southern strategy electable.

Pretty sure there’s an ocean of difference between Jesus Christ rebuking the literal devil and a politician traveling across state borders to illegally deface a statue as a publicity stunt to fundraise and get an interview on Fox about how he totally “decapitated Satan.” Even if his conviction was somehow driven by religion and not pure vanity (it wasn’t), any form of religious supremacy has no place in society at large, let alone a government building. The law recognizes this, “freedom of religion” is the backbone of this in the US, and I’d hope people understand why it might be a worthwhile and important protection to have and uphold.

Additionally, I have a suspicion that anyone who favorably compares a person who postures as a Christian supremacist to Christ is less the sort of person with an understanding of their religion and more the sort of person who knows how to search for the word “Satan” in their YouVersion Bible app.

I don’t understand the replies here - this bill was drafted in response to multiple events where ethno-nationalists burned the Qur’an in front of audiences with the implicit intent to incite violence against Denmark’s Muslim minority population. If you read the article, the bill bans the only the public burning of any religious book, not just the Qur’an. This bill would not “limit freedom of speech,” it would limit a form of hate speech and arguably stochastic terrorism being employed by the far right in Denmark. I do not see a problem with this bill.

Well for one, Jews and specifically Israelis don’t have to go anywhere for Palestine and Palestinians to be free?

Like the slogan just does not at all necessarily imply what you’re imagining (or what the US congress claims) it does. That slogan’s been around longer than Hamas.

I’m a little more torn over this than others… On one hand, this is the appropriate messaging to force Democrats to actually represent the interests of their electorate, the thing they’re specifically elected to do. The phone lines of these politicians should be going off 24 hours a day with callers telling them they will never even consider voting for them again unless they show an appropriate level of change, remorse, and action to stop this. Biden should be receiving that 10x over. Additionally, there are groups of people I will never criticize for refusing to vote - should the white lefty criticize the Muslim for refusing to vote for a leader that does not value the lives of Muslims? Should they criticize the Jew for refusing to vote for a leader who commits genocide in their name?

…and on the other hand, as a queer person who follows politics, I still feel any public refusal to vote Biden on my part must be a bluff. There’s too much at stake for me to justify going through with it privately… there’s my trans life, yes, but then there’s also the lives of my trans and generally queer friends, the freedoms of the women in my life, the lives and freedoms of those groups on the national scale, the ability for anyone to vote at all down the line - privately refusing to vote blue for the presidency would not feel like solidarity (partly because it would make the situation I’m refusing to vote over worse, and also potentially make life in the US for Jews and Muslims worse, as Republicans and Trump specifically have enacted things like explicit travel bans before). It would not feel like praxis to virtue signal my refusal to be complicit in one genocide only to be complicit in the all-to-possible ellimination of democracy at home and a subsequent net increase in genocide and funding for it around the world. Voting for Genocide Joe is not cool or satisfying or even right - it’s just the least bad… and honestly for what its worth, the least bad has never looked worse in my life.

I pretty much already stated all that. When it’s about performing some act, and where “what you don’t agree with” impacts the work being performed.

…so if we go with the previous example, a photographer should be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple if they’re “not at ease” with seeing them -

“move a little closer”, “look this way”, "kiss lightly ", etc., etc.

Well the hypothetical protection you’re describing would in practice protect and embolden people who hold white supremacist beliefs. I say “embolden” because you know what a racist photographer would do without those protections? They’d either turn them down, or they would take the pictures, take the money, and keep their ugly mouths shut. Because those are better options than fighting a battle they believe they could lose.

However, if they are legally protected by the federal government in communicating to interracial couples they won’t provide service to them because they are an interracial couple, can you imagine the actions a now unrepressed fanatic would take? You think you wouldn’t see “whites only” on some of these people’s websites? And can you begin to imagine the fear and anxiety that would inspire in the people who now have to see those kinds of notices while looking for a wedding photographer? A wedding cake? Who now have to ask every photographer and cake maker if they serve “couples like them” if they don’t have a notice? Can you see the parallels?

Legal action that empowers bigots and disempowers those they hate at scale is all it takes to develop a foundation and vocal support for the return of socially acceptable and legally backed discrimination. And you better believe that a foundation is exactly what the far-right politicians that brought about these “protections” view it as, because plenty have signaled openly that they have no interest in stopping legalized queer discrimination here, and will absolutely use this decision to justify going further in the future, the same strategy they use for all their culture wars.

Good point, must not have been that bad, supreme court could really bring that one back with zero consequences, huh?

A bit of a tangential question, but one I know a little about. Mostly correct, but I’d phrase it differently: up until the civil war, the Republicans were generally left-leaning and Democrats were generally right-leaning.

In terms of what lead to the switch, after the civil war, there weren’t a whole lot of politicians in the south from either party who supported abolition. A solid number of those politicians likely saw a need to work together if they wanted white supremacy to succeed in a nation that just rejected their racist bs so hard that they fought and won a war with them over it.

Initially, the Democratic party was to remain the bastion of right wing regressivism, but the lines weren’t firmly established until democrats started voicing their support for civil rights. Most majorly, Truman voicing his support for civil rights began the redrawing of the lines, and LBJ passing the civil rights act cemented the switch. All remaining Democrats who opposed civil rights switched to the Republican party, where they would cultivate and appeal to voters who shared their opinion on civil rights by developing and implementing the southern strategy.

This is the foundation of the modern Republican party - they were the party formed to oppose and undermine civil rights, a role they’ve maintained to this day.