I am several hundred opossums in a trench coat
I knew something was wrong but I didn’t put the dots together until my early 20s. I’d definitely had “I wanna be a girl” thoughts as a kid/teen but wasn’t super aware that being trans was a thing so shoved them to the back of my brain and allowed myself to just kinda feel broken instead.
Transition at a younger age. Would have saved me a lot of hurt in the years between
Again, it was a Washington Times article, not Post. The Washington Post was not linked because neither Trump nor Snopes cited them. Likewise, whether or not the “stuff on yahoo” that “seems like ai slop” to you doesn’t change whether it is AI authored (it isn’t, it was written by a human working at Snopes and posted to Snopes) nor whether it is accurate (it is). Trump did post the article with the image in question to his Truth Social account on March 9, 2025.
The discussion raised by people in this thread is not about the content of the linked Washington Times article, it is about the fact that the president of the United States is using iconography developed by the Nazis in the same manner as the Nazis. That said, to take the obvious bait you’ve set up, we’ve seen how ineffective both Russia and North Korea’s army are. They are clearly a poor model for a well run and organised army, regardless of their supposedly “masculine strength”. I also reject your claim that strength is a purely masculine trait. The US has had a (if begrudgingly) diverse military for as long as it has been a global superpower. Gay people, trans people, people of color, and more recently women have been contributing successfully to that strength for longer than you or I have been alive. Many of those groups are typically cast as non masculine, yet clearly display great strength.
I’m not going to be responding to you any further, I don’t really feel like you’re engaging in good faith.
It’s a Washington Times op, not the Washington Post. It is not an “ai slop yahoo article”, but Snopes article aggregated on Yahoo News.
Like you’re trying to attack the credibility of these criticisms while seemingly being completely unaware of who wrote them or who they’re responding to.
Context no longer seems to matter to them, so it shouldn’t to anyone else when discussing things like this. Pass it around.
Ignoring necessary context required to correctly understand or interpret even a direct quote while “pass[ing] it around” is extremely deceptive. Exhibit A. In context, it is extremely plausible that Trump was referring to the 2020 election as, by losing it and being eligible to run in 2024, he is now able to oversee the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
We shouldn’t spread something we know to be misinformation or deceptive. Context is important.
Delegate John Dickinson asked a rhetorical question: “Will a virtuous and sensible people chuse villains or fools for their officers?”
People should just be using TOTP, its only a little less convenient in my opinion (or actually more sometimes, like when you don’t get the SMS MFA code for an hour!)
Nearly everywhere in my country mandates lessons, so yeah
Verizon sold Tumblr to WordPress in 2019
It is illegal in most countries to host child sexual abuse material.
Whether they acted out of malice or ignorance, they bear the same moral culpability for the consequences of their vote. They have a social responsibility to ensure they are informed and vote accordingly; everyone should be able to spot fascism and authoritarianism when they see it.
You’re mostly right. Newer devices won’t share their entire app list by default, at compile time you need to enumerate every app you want to query for, or add what are essentially a list of intent filters (which are like “I want to talk to apps that take this kind of message and payload”). There is still a permission that lets you list all apps like you were able to on pre API 30 devices, but Google makes it pretty difficult to get onto the app store in that state.
You can still send intents as much as you like though (as long as you know the recipient), since they’re the basis for all inter-process communication.
My point is more that an app developer can’t and doesn’t need to use the play store to get the list of apps you have on your phone. This requirement to have the play store almost certainly isn’t malicious and I disagree with the notion that apps shouldn’t be able to use what is essentially system infrastructure to improve their apps. That said, given this is an app targeting the fediverse, it would have been nice for the developer to have made a universal APK build that didn’t require the Play Store.
If this error message is actually talking about Google Play, not Google Play Services, I would bet that it is because it employs Dynamic Feature Modules; something which can only be delivered over the Play Store infrastructure. They’re pretty common in modern Android development since they can substantially improve the user experience for users with Google Play enabled (which is most of them).
Also, I am aware this is being pedantic, but Android just straight up already has an API to get every installed app on your device and interact with it, even on a de-googled phone.
I lived near this sign and passed it a dozen times, they only took it down in the last few years. It was pretty infamous, even before it hit the internet.
Ok rather than responding in kind with some snarky comment, I’m going to make a good faith effort explain what I mean.
My statement that “beauty standards are based in white supremacy” is talking about what we, as a whole society, consider attractive. I am not talking about your personal taste, I am talking about the kinds of bodies, faces, and styles that are elevated in society and pointing our their basis in white supremacy.
Firstly, we need to understand that beauty standards are not some platonic ideal of beauty, they are socially constructed and therefore informed by the society in which they exist. This also necessarily means that current standards are an evolution of historical standards, reciprocally changing as people both influence the standards and are influenced by them.
That means that if we want to understand today’s beauty standards, we also need to consider them in a historical context. I hope it is not a controversial point to say that most white countries (i.e. Australia where I live, and the US where much of the discussion often centres) were historically white supremacist (if not presently, but that is a different can of worms). Like they openly stated it (i.e. “White Australia” being official policy) and legally elevated whites, this isn’t up for discussion. I would hope it is not difficult to imagine that such a society would also base its definitions of beauty around white features: white skin, white facial features, blonde hair, etc. A cliche example of this would be the historical masculinization of African-American people and their bodies. Pernicious stereotypes like “Jezebel”, “Sapphire”, and more modern incarnations like “Angry Black Woman” are prime examples of this, where black women are given qualities or cast into roles considered, in a societal context, incompatible with femininity or even outright masculine.
Therefore, to evaluate my claim that beauty standards are “based in white supremacy”, we need to determine whether our standards have substantially deviated from that history. I would argue it has not, that our beauty standards are clearly descendant. To look at the modelling industry as a prominent signifier, even with notional improvements in the diversity of models, the presence of eurocentric features is largely maintained (see 1, 2, 3). That is not to say there isn’t work, particularly from passionate activists, to move on from this history - but we are not there yet.
Finally, in regards to this entire thread, I want to point out that, due to the global hegemonic nature of whiteness - historically and presently - to some uneducated eyes the premise of my argument here - that beauty standards are not objective but subjective and socially constructed - may be dismissed out of hand. A naive look at other prominent non-white cultures that attempt to recreate the aesthetics of white beauty standards (i.e. skin lightening products in south-east asia) could appear to suggest that they may be formed from an objective standpoint. This is patently and obviously untrue. Other cultures and periods of time had extremely varied beauty standards to those we have today, and it is a blatant case of presentism and ignorance to assume that our particular version is “correct”. We should be skeptical of claims that, unlike so many other aspects of society, beauty standards alone are not impacted by the global history of colonialism and the dominance of white countries globally.
The Affinity suite is not an Adobe product.