[jewenby]

I use this blog primarily for combating misinfo and sharing my own opinions on various political or science topics.

Only follow this blog if you want overly detailed posts with a lot of links.

If you are angry at my responses to misleading, propagandistic, or false posts, here are a few points to consider:

If your movement requires misinformation, then you should sit down and evaluate what your goals are. Movements for abolition, autonomy, and self-determination do not need misinformation

We all make mistakes, and we all get so passionate about things that we forget to check it its true. A lot of viral posts are popular because the language/topic (purposely or incidentally) exploits your compassion or anger. Also sources are hard to find/check/verify. Don't sweat being wrong, and let me know if I am wrong!

I try not to add info onto posts that are jokes unless a number of people are taking it seriously it the comments (and the subject is important). Tone is difficult to communicate over written media, so misinterpretions are sometimes unavoidable. If it is a joke, and you want to yell at me about that, check the notes and see if most folks know that.

Yeag I'm not fun at parties

~~~~~~~~~

Overly detailed descriptions of my personal views

~~~~~~~~~

Personally and politically, I am an anarchist. I believe:

No state is sacrosanct

People are fundamentally neutral: neither inherently malicious or altruistic (though individuals can choose to be either)

We must all walk the talk to accomplish anything important. Posting is only advocacy, it is not action. If you feel frustrated at the state of the world, get your friends together and get hands-on.

Human rights apply to everyone. Yes, even [insert bad person here].

People are not their country. Even if 99% of citizens believe in something terrible, you cannot pick out one individual and know their views.

People are products of their environment, and people cannot choose the environment they are born into. This does not excuse bad actions, but we must understand how people come to do horrible things if we are to understand how to stop those horrible things from happening.

Statistics are generalizations, not individual truths. They should not guide your life or your decisions about individuals. If 20% of people are X, then you can expect to encounter a person who is X in most randomly selected groups of five folks. But, (a) sufficiently random selection almost never naturally occurs; (b) population percentages are almost always an estimate (and often a bad estimate at that); and (c) that statistic says nothing about that guy over there.

[jewenby]

I know I don't have a ton of followers, but does anyone have recommendations for reading that might focus on organizing strategies around discomfort politics?

What I mean by discomfort politics is the interplay between the following:

One's material conditions (i.e. how/if their needs are met) are a primary influence on one's beliefs about the world. People will naturally tend towards furthering their own interests. We're not born with an innate understanding of how to do this, so we tend to rely on how we feel + societal messaging.

"Comfort" and "security" have their roots in real components of life, but are just feeling at the end of the day. The idea that one may become materially insecure (or never become secure) is frightening enough to persuade folks of various horrible things.

The taste of privilege is sweet, but most people are aware (at least peripherally) that someone has to lose out for others to have more than their fair share.

It makes people uncomfortable to think about their privileges. It is uncomfortable to benefit from other people's subjugation, and it is uncomfortable to do so without fighting back. This discomfort often feels overwhelming, and thus people tend to shut down related conversations or create fantasy worlds where they are actually a "good person."

It is useless to try and get rid of discomfort, as people are largely unable to control their feelings. The goal, at minimum, is for folks to sit in / think about their discomfort.

Discomfort is a radicalizing force for many people, and not always in a good way.

[jewenby]

Apologies, this reblog is mostly a vent. This is on my mind because of frustrating interactions with liberals.

Specifically "Vote Blue No Matter Who" democrats who alter their definition of "harm" and "person" when determining the "lesser evil." The marginalized in the US and across the world do not factor in their equation of "harm."

The right wing will always work to shrink the "in group," and many a democrat's biggest fear is becoming the "out group." They construct a fantasy world where blue politicians take care of the "out group," and that care is ripped away once the red team is in office.

But the system isn't changing. The underclass is just growing. The average democrat's proximity to instability is the problem. Gazans are an acceptable sacrifice, especially if their plight is always up for debate. It's an acceptable sacrifice for poor immigrants under Biden and Obama to be deported en masse, separated from their families, and hunted in the desert for sport.

The average US American was never going to be victim to that.

The Trump admin scares them because the government is less discriminatory with state violence. Now they are not just caging the "dirty/criminal caravans", but also college students and white europeans/canadians and "law abiding refugees". People that look and speak like them. And even now, the rhetoric is still based in fears of their victimhood. Every kidnapped college student is Trump threatening them.

These real human beings are just rhetorical devices for the next "mic drop" post/blog/op-ed. Other times, the violence becomes suffering porn, or is wielded as a cudgel against other scapegoated marginalized groups. At best, it just triggers the billionth "First they came for..." post.

What are the two major concerns for democrats right now? Tariffs and Epstein. Tariffs have the most impact on the average person in the global north, and the Epstein files play into the conspiratorial panic over massive hidden pedophile rings kidnapping white girls that used to be the realm of QAnoners. Democrats getting what they want on these two issues does 0 to change the status quo.

This state of threatened livelihood seems to only drive people to build more walls between the in and out group. The strategy seems to be: "Lets fortify our privilege so we can benevolently extend it to others later." They vote for the "lesser evil" because they are more concerned with stalling their own victimhood than confronting a system which requires victims to operate.

While it is frustrating, I do understand why these thought processes are so appealing. I mean, US leftist activists (including myself) are often unwilling to carry out actions that threaten jail time and/or sufficient social consequences. This is rooted in a similar emotional process: we avoid the risk of discomfort at the price of perpetuating a violent and oppressive system, even when we have solutions.

So how the fuck do we intervene here. How do we convince someone to sit in their own discomfort about the systems we live in? How do we prevent people in our lives and in our communities from entering the enticing fantasy of "everything is okay in the world as long as I'm not at risk"?

To me, it seems like this obstacle is the most difficult to traverse. Maybe its just correlation and not causation, but people who are conscious of their reliance on comfort as a metric for harm (and that it is a facade) seem to be more apt to actual activism.

[jewenby]

I know I don't have a ton of followers, but does anyone have recommendations for reading that might focus on organizing strategies around discomfort politics?

What I mean by discomfort politics is the interplay between the following:

One's material conditions (i.e. how/if their needs are met) are a primary influence on one's beliefs about the world. People will naturally tend towards furthering their own interests. We're not born with an innate understanding of how to do this, so we tend to rely on how we feel + societal messaging.

"Comfort" and "security" have their roots in real components of life, but are just feeling at the end of the day. The idea that one may become materially insecure (or never become secure) is frightening enough to persuade folks of various horrible things.

The taste of privilege is sweet, but most people are aware (at least peripherally) that someone has to lose out for others to have more than their fair share.

It makes people uncomfortable to think about their privileges. It is uncomfortable to benefit from other people's subjugation, and it is uncomfortable to do so without fighting back. This discomfort often feels overwhelming, and thus people tend to shut down related conversations or create fantasy worlds where they are actually a "good person."

It is useless to try and get rid of discomfort, as people are largely unable to control their feelings. The goal, at minimum, is for folks to sit in / think about their discomfort.

Discomfort is a radicalizing force for many people, and not always in a good way.

[eldritchcrab]

GUYS NEW SHARK JUST DROPPED

Well, technically it's not new : it's a nurse shark. What's new, however, is that it's the first xanthic (imagine albinism but in yellow) nurse shark ever found !! Not only it's not common AT ALL to find fishes with xanthism (it's the first cartilagenous fish ever recorded with this type of genetic "anomally"), but if it's there and still existing as an adult, it means the species is chill-ish with other predators (it probably would have been eaten by then). Its eyes are white so it can also be a form of albinism, in addition to xanthism !!!!!

And most of all : ITS SO CUTE !! AND IT'S SUCH A COOL FIND !!

Please if a marine biologist or someone with more info can interact with this post to feed me some more info or correct me on wrong infos i'e given I'd love it !

(Also if you have pics of animals with xanthism, it's also very appreciated!!)

[jewenby]

First record case of free-living xanthism in the nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre, 1788) from Caribbean Sea - Marine Biodivers

Xanthism, characterized by yellow pigmentation, is rare in marine species and has not been previously reported in cartilaginous fishes in th

[covid-safer-hotties]

[jewenby]

Surpassed somewhat implies that rates are recently growing, which we don't know (as far as I'm aware). But it is true that Long Covid is the most common childhood chronic illness in the US at an estimated 5.8 million children, and we've known this since at least early 2024. It's frustrating that JAMA took over a year to issue guidance.

Using the 2022 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) prevalence estimates (unless noted from more up-to-date sources) + a 2025 estimate of 70.9 million US children:

PASC (Long Covid) - 5.8 million (8.2%) [AAP article]

Asthma - 4.5 million (6.3%) [CDC]

Headaches/Migraines - 1.8 million (2.6%)

Heart Conditions - 992k (1.4%)

Autoimmune Disease (e.g. type 1 diabetes, celiac, etc.) - 709k (1%)

Blood Disorders (e.g. hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, etc.) - 425k (0.6%)

Seizure Disorders (any severity) - 425k (0.6%)

Type 2 Diabetes - 71k (0.1%)

Also from the NSCH, here's some other numbers to put the Long Covid prevalence in perspective:

Anxiety - 7.5 million (10.7%)

ADHD - 7.4 million (10.4%)

Depression - 3.1 million (4.4%)

Autism - 2.8 million (3.9%)

Ever had a concussion/brain injury - 2.8 million (3.9%)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant medical, social, and economic impacts globally, both in the short an

Long COVID and kids: more research is urgently needed

Like adults, children can experience long COVID, but few studies of the condition include young people. That has to change.

[jewenby]

The whole "kid's can't read" outcry in the US recently has really rubbed me the wrong way. Since COVID, there has been a widespread perception of the following:

Gen Z/Alpha kids behave worse in schools

There are massive decreases in childhood literacy

The first claim relies on teacher experiences. I love my teacher friends a lot, but many of them are comparing their experiences with kids to the "good ole days" when they were in school. I'm much more interested in teachers who have been teaching for a long time and are comparing students from a decade ago to students now.

The second claim has spun off of the decline in reading cores for elementary school students. We do know that early reading suffered due to the use of essentially "quack" teaching methods (enforced by bad education policy), but the panic around literacy seems to supersede this fact.

Most of us know that the "kids these days" phenomenon occurs for every generation. Here is an oft-cited research article from 2019 on it: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav5916

So I guess I will look into each claim further and update...

[jewenby]

So the societal panic over childhood literacy seems to have entered the mainstream with the release of the nation’s report card from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). This EdTrust article claims that 43% of fourth graders scored at or above a proficient reading level, with major disparities for marginalized groups.

Other floating claims/anecdotes feeding into the panic:

"College students can't/don't/won't read books!" (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6])

Kids don't read for fun anymore

This is all caused by the lack of phonics education

The NAEP report card is released biannually, with a gap during COVID (2017, 2019, 2022, 2024). The reading assessment is controversial because it defines literacy in a very particular way. The idea of literacy being testable on a standardized exam doesn't capture the myriad of ways in which a child uses and interprets language.

Here are the grade 4 item maps for the reading exam in 2022. Item maps show every question that was on the exam alongside what it was supposed to measure.

How to read the item map: The test items are displayed in reverse order of difficulty (hardest at the top, easiest at the bottom). If an item has been publicly released, it is hyperlinked. Otherwise, the The subheadings "NAEP Advanced/Proficient/Basic" are placed such that students answering all the questions below the subheading meet that benchmark. So the "Basic" benchmark, for example, would require students to answer the first five easiest questions correctly. Technically, they just have to reach the cut score (208 for Basic, 238 for Proficient, and 268 for Advanced), but its rare for students to get easy questions wrong and hard questions right. The SR vs CR acronyms in parentheses denote Selected Response (multiple choice or other formats with one right answer) and Constructed Response (more free-form questions with partial credit).

Looking at the item maps also gives you a good idea of what "proficient" really means. Personally, I think it doesn't make sense to equate "able to read" with the proficient benchmark. Also keep in mind that cut scores are always political. While people put a lot of time into statistical accuracy, and teachers make expert recommendations, the cut scores are a decision made by 1 person with an agenda.

Now to look at the actual reading score trends. The most recent report card notes that there is no significant difference in 2024 reading scores vs. 1992 reading scores (the first NAEP assessment), but criteria changed a few times since then (most recently in 2009). The comparative statistics show that reading performance has declined since 2015, with progressively lower scores every two years. The score drops are relatively minimal, though, and there has been almost no change for students already in the upper percentiles.

What happened after 2015? The No Child Left Behind act ended and funding for schools was no longer tied to standardized test scores. Teachers were no longer required to teach to the test, and teacher-led cheating declined. Predictably, students performed worse on the NAEP, but that doesn't mean they are actually reading worse. Maybe they are, but we don't have other data on this.

The best scores the US has never had more than 66% of students reach the Basic level. In 2024, that was 60%, and 2022 had 62%. I'm not quite sure what the "good ole days of reading" are referring to, even if these percentages accurately showed reading skill.

---

On the other two claims/anecdotes:

Professors are probably just being dicks. There is no evidence of a decline in reading ability for college students. These specific claims have been circulating since the early 2000s, and seem to correspond with other panics about various technologies and with panics over affirmative action. If this was really true, we'd (at the very least) see a massive decline in Grade 12 literacy, which we haven't. Tip: if you ever read an oped written by or quoting college professors on general societal trends, ignore them. Unless they are researching the issue, they are not subject matter experts and they are some of the most elitist people you'll ever meet.

It is true that kid's don't read for fun anymore. We just have no idea if this means they can't read.

The Sold a Story controversy with phonics has little to do with reading comprehension, it's about actually learning the words in the books. Additionally, the ineffective method of teaching reading has been around since the 1960s, so it wouldn't be the reason for a decline in just the past decade.

[jewenby]

The whole "kid's can't read" outcry in the US recently has really rubbed me the wrong way. Since COVID, there has been a widespread perception of the following:

Gen Z/Alpha kids behave worse in schools

There are massive decreases in childhood literacy

The first claim relies on teacher experiences. I love my teacher friends a lot, but many of them are comparing their experiences with kids to the "good ole days" when they were in school. I'm much more interested in teachers who have been teaching for a long time and are comparing students from a decade ago to students now.

The second claim has spun off of the decline in reading cores for elementary school students. We do know that early reading suffered due to the use of essentially "quack" teaching methods (enforced by bad education policy), but the panic around literacy seems to supersede this fact.

Most of us know that the "kids these days" phenomenon occurs for every generation. Here is an oft-cited research article from 2019 on it: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav5916

So I guess I will look into each claim further and update...

[pisshandkerchief]

if you can accept that there will be trans men who look virtually indistinguishable from cis women, than you can accept that there will be trans women who look virtually indistinguishable from cis men. either by choice or by circumstance. and if you can't respect them the same as you would anybody else, you need to examine why that is

[jewenby]

I'll add that, from the experiences of various trans butches in my life, it is not "respect" to enforce certain behaviors or desires to distinguish between "cis men" and such trans women / nonbinary folks.

This includes when other queer/trans people:

push unsolicited "makeovers" or other aesthetic "advice";

display palpable discomfort when pre-/non-physical-transition transfems do not behave in a "girly" manner;

make nitpicky comments about the clothes transfems choose to wear, often in a vague attempt to push them towards more "girly" aesthetic

Too many other trans folks treat "non-conforming" transfems with the same patriarchal behaviors that mothers are expected to perform for their "non-conforming" daughters.

[forbidden-sorcery]

The devastation of nuclear colonialism, which permanently destroys Indigenous communities throughout the world, is outright ignored by some of the most devout climate justice advocates. They claim nuclear energy production is also a green solution to the climate crisis. More than 15,000 abandoned uranium mines are located within the so-called US, mostly in and around Indigenous communities, permanently poisoning sacred lands and waters with little to no action being taken to clean up their deadly toxic legacy. There are currently ninety-three operating nuclear reactors in the so-called US that supply 20% of the country’s electricity. There are 60,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear waste stored in concrete dams at nuclear power plants throughout the country with the waste increasing at a rate of 2,000 tons per year. In 1987 the “US” Congress initiated a controversial project to transport and store almost all of the US’s toxic waste at Yucca Mountain located about 100 miles northwest of so-called Las Vegas, Nevada. Yucca Mountain has been held holy to the Paiute and Western Shoshone Nations since time immemorial. In January 2010 the Obama administration approved a $54 billion taxpayer loan in a guarantee program for new nuclear reactor construction, three times what Bush previously promised in 2005. In April 2022, the Biden administration announced a $6 billion government bailout to “rescue” nuclear power plants at risk of closing. A colonial government representative stated, “US nuclear power plants contribute more than half of our carbon-free electricity, and President Biden is committed to keeping these plants active to reach our clean energy goals.” They, along with Climate Justice activists cite nuclear energy as necessary to combat global warming, all while ignoring the devastating permanent impacts Indigenous Peoples have faced. There is nothing clean about energy produced from nuclear colonialism. From its weapons (including depleted uranium) to its mining and its waste; Indigenous bodies, lands, and waters continue to be sacrificed to heat water with radioactive materials which creates steam that moves generators to charge batteries made from lithium extracted from other Indigenous sacred lands so Teslas can move you forward into a “just” climate future. A green economy sustains and advances colonial progress, which means mitigated selective and ongoing destruction of Mother Earth.

Klee Benally - No Spiritual Surrender: Indigenous Anarchy In Defense of the Sacred

[jewenby]

The Health Impacts of Uranium Mining in Native American Communities - Native American Budget & Policy Institute

the Anti-Uranium Mining Project (from the same researchers at the UMN Native American Budget & Policy Institute)

Church Rock, America’s Forgotten Nuclear Disaster, Is Still Poisoning Navajo Lands 40 Years Later - Vice (2019)

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Petition by the Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining against the United States of America - New Mexico Environmental Law Center (2021; final petition text, with figures, which describes the toll of uranium mining on native communities)

Host Communities and Nuclear Energy: Benefits for Some, Risks for Others - Good Energy Collective (2022; report from a pro-nuclear energy advocacy group on the environmental injustice of nuclear energy production)

Uranium and arsenic unregulated water issues on Navajo lands (2020)

[nudityandnerdery]

Thread by @itsalexvacca on Thread Reader App

@itsalexvacca: BREAKING: MIT just completed the first brain scan study of ChatGPT users & the results are terrifying. Turns out, AI isn't ma

[nudityandnerdery]

[sevenoffeathers]

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM,

the original paper, for anyone interested

[ariaste]

"Here's the terrifying part: When researchers forced ChatGPT users to write without AI, they performed worse than people who never used AI at all. It's not just dependency. It's cognitive atrophy. Like a muscle that's forgotten how to work.

THIS IS THE METAPHOR THAT I KEEP USING ALL THE TIIIIIIIME

[earlgraytay]

I would like to point out that this study has not been peer-reviewed yet and may or may not replicate.

It looks real bad, and it might be real bad, but it's not necessarily definitive proof that AI Rots Yer Brain.

[ms-demeanor]

I would like to add that the authors of the study provided a FAQ that says the following:

Is it safe to say that LLMs are, in essence, making us "dumber"? No.  Please do not use the words like “stupid”, “dumb”, “brainrot”, "harm", "damage",  and so on. It does a huge disservice to this work, as we did not use this vocabulary in the paper, especially if you are a journalist reporting on it.

and

Additional vocabulary to avoid using when talking about the paper In addition to the vocabulary from Question 1 in this FAQ - please avoid using "brain scans",  "LLMs make you stop thinking", "impact negatively", "brain damage", "terrifying findings". 

And I would like to point out that the twitter OP uses at least two of these terms, the Time story quoted in the middle of this post discusses "harms" that the study authors are not certain are harmful and that the tags are full of people saying that this is terrifying, horrifying, will rot people's brains, we're cooked, we told you so, etc, which are specifically things that the authors didn't want to have as the takeaway for the story.

I'd also like to note that the OP of the twitter thread is the COO of a company that sells AI assistants whose entire twitter presence is using AI-written threads about AI to generate social media traffic to drive to his AI sales company.

His takeaway from all of these, and the original thread on this post, is that people should use the AI *he* sells.

The MIT preprint is an interesting preliminary study that has suggestive findings about the way that habitual AI use changes users' behavior; it also had interesting points to make about how the search engine arm of the study was noticeably influenced by terms that had been promoted by google ads, and it recorded that people who used search engines had brain connectivity that was reduced compared to people writing only from their minds. But nobody is talking about the horrifying, harmful cognitive debt making us dumber caused by search engines (and they shouldn't be!)

The guy who is calling this cognitive atrophy is an AI shill who wants to use terms that the study's authors don't stand behind in order to make AI seem more powerful than it actually is. The study (and the Time article screencapped above) both note that the highest level of mental engagement was from people who had previously written essays with no assistance writing a final essay *with* AI assistance (so in that circumstance the use of AI strengthened cognitive response). To quote that article directly: "The second group, in contrast, performed well, exhibiting a significant increase in brain connectivity across all EEG frequency bands. This gives rise to the hope that AI, if used properly, could enhance learning as opposed to diminishing it."

So, basically what we've done here is let a 200-word AI summary of a 200+ page paper take the burden of cognitive load off our shoulders instead of taking the time to think critically about where we're getting our information from.

I continue to be less concerned about AI rotting our brains than I am about how infrequently people click through links on social media.

I'd recommend reading some of the study if you've got time. I found the ways that the English teachers and the AI used by the study differed in their analysis of the papers - because, please note, the authors of the study used LLMs for some of the data - really interesting.

[vro0ms-evil-twin]

I fucking hate that the general response to RFK Jr's eugenist take on autistic people is "autistic people do pay taxes, autistic people do work, autistic people do date!"

Some autistic people don't and that shouldn't make them less worthy of life. Some autistic people do need constant help and support and that shouldn't make them less worthy of life.

Once again we're falling in the right wing trap of :

They make a hateful, fascist statement

Instead of focusing on the fact that it is hateful and fascist we try to show them that they are factually wrong

We throw our own allies and the most vulnerable of us under the bus in the process

We legitimise an only slightly less hateful, fascist view as we go

They have completed their goal of making us accept the still hateful, fascist second version, hurrah. What a victory.

Right now what we're getting to with that is that autistic people who can work and pay taxes are okay, and the others aren't. Fuck this shit.

Same thing happens with the people who are being deported ("they have a visa!", "they didn't even have a criminal record!" -> even if they didn't have a visa, even if they did have a criminal record, deporting them and detaining them in what's essentially a concentration camp wouldn't be okay, you absolute tools of fascism.)

[jewenby]

A relevant historical reminder for folks: the "some of us can contribute enough to society" schtick has a (horrible) historical precedent.

Hans Asperger, himself suspected to be autistic by some historians, spent his years under Nazi rule "proving" that certain autistic kids were functional enough to be useful. The autistic children not deemed "high-functioning" enough were murdered en masse at Am Spiegelgrund.

[depsidase]

[digitalmagpie]

After Paris curbed cars, air pollution maps reveal a dramatic change …

[madnessofmen]

bruh. nypd and eric adams gave evidence to hbo before they gave it to luigi's lawyers. and the evidence obtained was a violation of 4th amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, meaning it can't be used in the case. they're trying soooooooo hard to bias the public against him

[merps]

[ID 1 & 2: Screenshot of an ABC News article:

Friedman Agnifilo also said it was "shocking" to see the NYPD's chief of detectives and New York City Mayor Eric Adams give an interview in a documentary that aired this week "talking about police paperwork" that they had not received until now and "hearing an actor play Luigi, reading from a journal that they say is Luigi's, and we have yet to receive it from the prosecution."

What's been handed over barely scratches the surface of sufficient, Friedman Agnifilo contested. The "limited" information the defense had seen so far -- such as a body worn camera from when Mangione was taken into Pennsylvania custody -- already indicate her client's "constitutional rights were violated," she insisted.

"I think there's a very, very serious search issue in this matter, and there might be evidence that is suppressed," she said.

"It's outrageous that they have time to go and prejudice Mr. Mangione's ability to receive a fair trial and go out and make these statements, but not give this to us," she said.

/End ID 1 & 2]

[ID 3: Screenshot from a different article from NPR:

Karen Friedman Agnifilo, told Judge Gregory Carro that there were "serious search and seizure issues" with her client's arrest in Pennsylvania, and that she would seek to exclude some evidence. Gothamist reports Agnifilo also said that Mayor Eric Adams and a top NYPD official improperly discussed evidence in this case.

/End ID 3]

[ID 4: Screenshot of an article from Yahoo News:

this to us. So we are concerned because if the chief of detectives is telling everybody about all this evidence, what if it ultimately gets suppressed because it was an illegal search and seizure in Altoona, Pennsylvania, how is he going to get a fair trial?

/End ID 4]

Source articles:

ABC News on February 21, 2025

NPR on February 21, 2025

Yahoo News on February 21, 2025

[baddingtonbitch]

finding enough plastic in human brains to make a spoon is certainly a shocking headline but I just don't have it in me to be shocked anymore. not only can I see the evidence of spoon brain all around me I can literally feel it in myself

[baenrebitch-deactivated20250911]

The Human Brain May Contain as Much as a Spoon's Worth of Microplastics, New Research Suggests

The amount of microplastics in the human brain appears to be increasing over time: Concentrations rose by roughly 50 percent between 2016 an

a link to the article for context.

[qwertyfingers]

FYI this study has already been debunked by the scientific community! The methodology used is known to be bogus and misinterprets normal fatty tissue as high in microplastics — the brain is around 60% fat — because the authors are not experienced in the field. I do not believe there is an official retraction or update yet but here is some informal correction from actual micro/nanoplastics researchers. Yes, microplastics are everywhere, but it makes zero biophysiological sense for it to be amassing in your brain the way that paper suggests, particularly when that is not happening to the major filtering organs like liver, kidneys and the lymph system.

[i-was-today-years-old-when]

i learned that Chase National Bank helped raise over $20 million for the Nazis between 1936-1941, by selling Reichmarks to German-American citizens at a discounted rate, and escaped federal prosecution through threatening to leak FBI secrets (x)

[theprofessional-amateur]

For no reason here is a library story

[theprofessional-amateur]

There will be millions of actions like this over the coming years. An important thing to remember is that for them to work (anywhere, not just libraries) is people absolutely can’t announce that this is what they are doing.

Not seeing constant acts of resistance doesn’t mean it isn’t happening all around you all the time. Some very effective methods require silence and secrecy.

Something to keep in mind.

[jewenby]

Additional notes:

These are things you learn about by talking to people offline and participating in community spaces. Unless an action requires a large group of participants, then it will likely not be discussed online. Many actions will also never be reported on.

You can do these same acts of resistance: big or small. Have a little fun with it. The likelihood of getting in any real trouble for an something like this is *much* smaller than you think.

[nancydrewwouldnever]

Reports of Navajo people being detained in immigration sweeps sparks concern from tribal leaders

The DOJ argued in court that Indigenous people don't have birthright citizenship, even though they have for 100 years

So... I promised myself I was going to cut back on the politics posts, because I need to protect my mental peace. But this one...

ICE has reportedly been picking up members of the Navajo Nation, as well as members of other Native nations, in urban areas of Arizona and telling them that they do not accept either state IDs or Certificates of Indian Blood (CIBs) as proof of U.S. citizenship. ICE is detaining them as having no identifiable U.S. citizenship.

So, you know.... the actual, true native citizens of the soil we call the United States. Yeah.

[jewenby]

As of that article, the Nation didn't have identifiable incidents. That has changed. The Navajo Nation now reports at least 15 individuals have been detained in raids.

Statement from NN President Nygren (Jan 24th 2025)

NN Council Report cited in article (Jan 23rd 2025)

CNN article with more details (Jan 27th 2025)

ICE has not responded to requests for info from any media outlet as far as I can find.

Axios provides wider context on the situation (Jan 28th 2025). The Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico reported a confrontation with ICE. The Ute Indian Tribe and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah both are offering legal counsel to detained members.