hate speech (of which nazi speech is a subset of) isn’t political either. it definitely should be banned because it demonstrably causes people to get hurt

insane stance to be advocating that nazis should have free speech in 2024

god bless the people giving stool samples so often for the studies. FOUR TIMES A YEAR FOR SIX YEARS?? i did it once and it was awful. and more frequently if they got vaxxed or sick? i would cry

thanks for sharing this information with us, i think it’s important to discuss this stuff on the fediverse

i notice that beehaw doesn’t have a similar clause in its TOS, as far as i can tell. without the expectation of you answering this question, i’m wondering what the difference is between the two such that cohost has such a clause and beehaw doesn’t. maybe it’s because one is run by an individual and one is run by a small company?

i did a search on cohost itself to see if anyone else talked about this and found this quite extensive thread: https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1588769277053739010

so based on what you’ve said and what’s in that thread, i’m gonna update my post with some qualifications about cohost. thanks for piqing my interest in the TOS

is there a way they could protect themselves (“still legally be able to function”) without that clause?

it’s not federated or open, but cohost is a tumblr-alternative run by a group of queer devs who promise not to sell the company or your data. i don’t blame you if you don’t buy into it, but i do like the platform

https://cohost.org/rc/welcome

edit: based on what /u/[email protected] has mentioned about the TOS, as well as further elaboration i found in a thread about it (https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1588769277053739010), i don’t think i can responsibly advocate for cohost, even as a closed/private alternative to tumblr

i, uh, hm. well, in a marriage, you don’t know if someone is exploiting your goodwill, but ideally you marry someone who you don’t have to actively worry about it e.g. someone you can trust

relationships aren’t a hard science, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t science about them. for example, you could check out the book, “a general theory of love”. or you could check out the work of john gottman on relationships and love, he’s done a ton of work on them

for more general information on like, how humans work, you can check out paul ekman’s work on facial expressions and the facial action coding system (FACS). i’d also recommend marshall rosenberg’s non-violent communication - i don’t recall how strictly research-based the work is, but he (until he died, anyways) and his org do trainings across the world in this stuff, and he has a phd in clinical psychology, so i… think… it has a reasonable foundation? (it’s been a while since i read it)

and of course, because trauma invariably deeply affects relationships, you can read “the body keeps the score”, which is maybe the foremost research based text for the layperson about it

sorry, i’m not sure how open you are to actually receiving this kind of information… it’s totally understandable if you’re not. i used to feel a lot like you, i think, kind of unsure and untrusting of others. and all of these things are things i’ve read and learned from that have given me a lot more confidence about interacting with other people in general

obviously, the knowledge itself isn’t enough, but maybe you’ll find it helpful nonetheless

yeah no, my post is closer to “there’s more than 0% free will” than “there’s 100% free will”. i definitely know too much about trauma to think it’s 100%. but trauma get so deeply ingrained, and it’s so cyclical; that anyone can break free, seems nothing short of miraculous to me. to me, if we had no free will, that would never happen

it’s insane to me that someone could understand the ramifications of trauma on neurobiology and conclude that free will doesn’t exist

i feel like, without free will, no one would ever escape their trauma. without saying something shitty and uncompassionate like “you’re only held back by your trauma because you’re not strong willed enough”; that’s not true at all

but i think, at it’s core, healing from trauma requires two things: a person who you feel safe enough to trust, and the willingness to take the leap and trust again

if you don’t have one or the other, you’re going to really struggle

and that moment where you choose to trust, how can you see that as anything but free will? when everything about your past, your nerves, your biology is screaming at you to do otherwise?

i dunno. i don’t think any of us would have grown past our trauma at all without free will

that said, i think there’s also just too much going on in the brain to conclude there’s no free will for sure. i guess that’s not the same as saying it’s deterministic, which you can’t really say, because physics gets too fucking weird at low levels, right?

anyways, i guess we can never really definitively say whether free will exists or not. but i think you can still make very strong arguments for being compassionate to poor people / traumatized people / people with mental illness / etc without saying we all don’t have free will. it feels a lot like saying we’re all doomed to be what we were made to be and we can’t make a better life for ourselves

it just starts with convincing people, and believing, that we all deserve that

deleted by creator

what a great article, i went in to learn about plastics, and learned about myself instead

me too, thanks for writing this so i didn’t have to

do you have a better alternative than rumble? i’m assuming, from context, it’s worse than youtube

fr, you could nab a shitty used car for that much

i’m not sure there’s a lot of value in arguing that, since we have a fiat currency, the government can just make new money and no one has to pay for it. the argument will simply change from “people who need welfare are mooching on taxpayers” to “people who need welfare are causing inflation”. it’s not really changing anything

the argument we should be making, as progressives, is that it’s fucking inhumane to let people die on the streets. we’re wealthy enough as a country that we can afford the taxes to ensure that never needs to happen. of course, if we implement universal healthcare, then you’ll be paying for your own healthcare, as well as others’, and we’ll all benefit from it being cheaper

the same goes for housing, etc. but arguing from a position of strength (i.e. we live in a country wealthy enough to do this) feels a lot more persuasive, to me, at least for an argument in the abstract - something you’d see on television, for example. it’s less persuasive for individuals who are obviously struggling, but for them, the argument is simply the fact that the system isn’t really working for them. and what would universal healthcare, etc, do…?

this is an interesting study to see. it’s a survey of mortality among japanese men and women and how their diets correlate with causes of death

personally, i’m not sure i find this a compelling argument against keto for men. their finding is increased mortality if their carbohydrate intake is <40% of their total energy expenditure. 40% is a pretty high bar for keto, where you’re looking to be at 5% at most (at most, 20g of carbs a day = 80 calories; 2000/80 comes out to be about 4%)

so probably, a lot of these people aren’t in keto, which i would consider a clinically relevant distinction (we don’t know for sure, since the nuances of the population’s eating habits weren’t published)

second, i don’t know that i would want to try keto in japan? like, i don’t know what their fat sources are, but… if i ate enough fish to sustain myself on keto, i’d get fucked up by mercury. and like… idk how much better it is? but a lot of my food comes from beef and dairy, which i don’t think are as commonplace there (i know it’s bad for the environment. i know. i know. i don’t want to starve though. i’m sorry)

i’m not that educated on how food looks in japan. but it strikes me as very keto unfriendly. depending, this might be a huge factor, or a minor one, but it’s hard to say without clarification

anyways, it’s an interesting post from a transmasc point of view. i originally fled carbs while running on estrogen. i feel like i tolerate them better (not well, per se) on testosterone. there’s a definite challenge on keto to eat enough calories on testosterone, especially now that i work out and i’m trying to build a considerable amount of muscle

but at the end of the day, i still feel better on keto, and now that i’ve figured out how to reliably provide like 3k calories in fat, i’m doing pretty well

nice, i’ll give seitan a try sometime

It’s sad to have issues with soy :-/ I really love tofu.

thank you, i appreciate this. i’m a quarter japanese ffs, and for what?? >_<

not really qualified to comment on protein needs; although, as a growing boy putting on muscle, needing more wouldn’t really surprise me

but, from what i do know about nutrition, i’m bothered that no one seemed to consider the ratio of protein to carbs/fats. i think you’ll need more protein if your energy needs aren’t being met by carbs or fats. protein isn’t really a preferential energy source for us, and i could easily imagine people having issues with protein absorption if they’re not receiving adequate energy from the other macros

also, on a personal note, it sucks how difficult it is to get clean, environmentally friendly protein and fat that doesn’t have milk or soy in it. as someone who does keto, there’s basically no brand out there who does meat substitutes right except for Beyond, which is free of allergens (although i’m sure there are a few people who are allergic to pea protein out there) and doesn’t add a bunch of carbs

i need to put more research into substituting whey protein, since it seems like no amount of ingested lactase entirely prevents digestive issues with it. but i’m confident it can be done, with the bonus of being more environmentally friendly. i’ve gotten a recommendation to use rice and pea protein, so it’s just a matter of going out of my way to get some

also, don’t forget that CORPORATIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 70% OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. not to say individual choices don’t help, but they’re a minority contribution

this is cool as fuck, science rules

wow that’s crazy, workers have standards for themselves and now the bosses can’t push us around and force us back to the office? wonder what would happen if we had those standards for more things…

in case you’re like me and didn’t know, PFAS refer to per- and polyflyoroalkyl substances, which seem to be correlated with negative health outcomes (re: developmental problems, cancer, fertility issues, etc) and are particularly tricky because they take a long time to break down.

they’re highly hydrophobic substances used in e.g. teflon. their use has decreased as we’ve come to understand their harms more, but we’re still dealing with the results of their high usage from the past. certain industries seem to still use it (stain repellants, polishes, paints, coatings)