ah there’s our miscommunication! i am not arguing anything i just misunderstood at first and offered a possible solution/additional context
but i was wrong so i issued my apologies and asked for clarification :)
you stated there was something that was a problem with the reporting, and i inaccurately surmised that it had to do with trans people experiencing hate. what was it in reality?
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
deleted by creator
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
absolutely true but Dolly Parton did not have to face transphobic harassment and violence
very very very important distinction
Removed by mod
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
where do you cite this five grade model?
the world health organization is not quite in line with you here (CW, hopefully obvious explicit discussion of mutilation) thanks !
this should hilight to us the outsized effect transphobia has on discourse.
if we were to believe the line that “we’re just concerned about people getting mutilated” we must naturally expect to see that 97% margin of outrage at breast implants, hair implants, weight management surgery etc. for cis folk.
and we don’t. here and there you might hear an evangelical getting upsetti spaghetti avout Ozempic et al but transphobic talking points dominate, in vast disproportion to actual individual cases.
yes twas a /joke :)
thats how my brain subconsciously interpreted the two guys before the background registered consciously
some russians are naked and are taking a shower out of a pipe
rest of russians wear adidas track suits and light a cigarette
wikipedia has fairly fleshed out histories:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken_stereotype
not sure why you are getting downvoted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken_stereotype https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype
such stereotypes absolutely exist to dehumanize. the other comment about red foods and juneteenth, while not factually false, fully misses the point of OPs question to an embarrassing degree.
edit: i guess to nitpick rather than “a meal imposed by oppressors” you should have said “two foods associated with stereotypes imposed by oppressors.” just to be fair.
In theory true. In reality not true.
While U.S. biofuel use rose from 0.37 to 1.34 EJ/yr over this period, additional carbon uptake on cropland was enough to offset only 37 % of the biofuel-related biogenic CO2emissions. This result falsifies the assumption of a full offset made by LCA and other GHG accounting methods that assume biofuel carbon neutrality. Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2emissions. study
Not passing judgement on anything, just putting the facts out there that I happen to know :) Biofuel may or may not be a good tool to move toward more sustainability, and it’s certainly better than petrol.
mean comment alert 🚨 opinion invalidated
yes, exactly what i am referencing :)
v true but i also dislike how biofuels get smorked into yet more CO2 which is kind of a problem rn
This is one of the first comments I have seen on lemmy that truly feels like old school reddit. You applied your professional knowledge to that fairly unkind commenter not only to correct them but also to express something many might not know!
Very cool of you keep it up champ :)