For me the easiest tell is the up front, unprompted, and unsolicited declaration of nonpoliticalness. When someone takes the time and expends the breath to announce how nonpolitical they are, what follows is almost always a rant about how everything/everyone else is too political these days, and that of course leads into something between status quo advocacy and outright reactionary/regressive sentiments for some fabled time before those wicked politics were visible to the nonpolitical ranter. 
People that are hostile to service workers. Some just want to take some ideological stand against tipping when the service worker doesn't really have a choice and needs those tips to survive in the current unjust system in a way where ideological purity gestures toward that service worker just look like being a greedy and sanctimonious asshole. The worst of such people will actually declare, shamelessly, that they believe that service workers don't deserve a living wage. The implications of that are 
worthy.
I may get shit for this, but I'll say it anyway: this hair and beard combo, seen on living people. 
I have yet to meet anyone in person with that look that wasn't a chud.
(If one of you is a comrade with that look, I am sorry in advance for the prejudice and if I ever meet you in person I will atone by buying you a drink or something.)
Particularly annoying since the entire 25th Dynasty of Egypt was actually black.
Apparently to them the advanced metallurgy of benin, the kingdom of nri, great fulo, mali, ghana, songhai, alodia, great zimbabwe, kongo, the sand houses of zanj sea, kanem-bornu, etc… are somehow not-worthy or like not “advanced enough”?
do you have any favorite sources for African history? or is it mainly like wiki-walking, forums, and googling, and just like ambient absorption from the internet?
like, I've been listening to Blowback and I keep thinking about how long it would take me to gather all that information without the podcast.
also @[email protected] because you mentioned a bunch of cool-sounding stuff
I know a little bit but I really wish I knew more.
googling "precolonial africa gay" is already really illuminating and i've only just started.
i'm looking at this and there are so many promising terms to google in it https://daily.jstor.org/the-deviant-african-genders-that-colonialism-condemned/
anyway thanks for pointing me in this direction, it's fascinating
Its more like target research into a topic when I know I want to know about a certain country/person, with a few amount of randomly searching through the internet haha. There is often a lack of variety of sources sadly. There is some good stuff by the https://historyofafricapodcast.blogspot.com/2021/03/?m=0 History of Africa podcast however.
That link was super interesting and I had never heard of any of that, thanks for the rec! I’ll be checking them out
No thanks needed!
I don't mean to disagree but
"Jesus was black
Ronald Reagan was the devil
and the government is lying about 9/11"
is a based take because Huey Freeman is probably the most based character in mainstream animation.
Mansa Musa is a boring figure. He was just some rich dude. Compare him with the founder of the Mali Empire and his grand-uncle Sundiata Keita.
In my experience near the Bay Area, there's enough spillover of Silicon Valley tech cult bullshit for "spiritual" to mean a number of terrible things from eugenics-fixated "Secular Calvinism" to prophecies of nerd rapture or escape from The Simulation(tm). And a lot of them have MLM-style grifts to sell you.
That reminds me of another sus flag: "(grifter) is nonpolitical and is just a lifestyle coach that wants you to practice self-improvement!"
I'm curious about your experience with people who say that. Its it anything other than the fact that the statement is fundamentally classist because buying GMO-free or non-processed foods is materially impossible for most working-class people?
I have pretty big criticisms to GMOs because I think their use has and will lead to the further precarization of food systems, the erasure of indigenous foodways and untold amounts of stress on soils and ecosystems. People who oppose GMOs on a "health" basis are a bit silly, in my opinion.
I see, thanks for explaining!
If you're interested, I'd like to talk more some other time (I'm ungodly busy and tired all the time right now) on the "being anti-GMOs is anti-intellectualism/science" bit, because as I've said before, food scholarship, and food activism are my chosen field of struggle, and I think there are good conversations to be had there.
I think many parts of movements for/about food have had the misfortune of getting started by privileged white people, and putting their concerns over basic humanity. But there are plenty of food-related movements like La Via Campesina who oppose GMOs on a political and ideological level, so we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
it'd be cool if your future conversation was public because i'm interested too
Couldn't have said it better, so
. I understand that GMOs aren't likely to be directly harmful to eat, but the longer-term effects on the wider ecosystem is the real (and thoroughly not studied nor understood) concern.
Your understanding is half accurate only because most gmo (81% of all genetically modified crops https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0052-7) is used to make crops "Round Up Ready" and immune to the herbicide Monsanto's Round Up which increases the use of glyphosate. Consuming glyphosate is directly harmful to eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or months, and its intensive and large-scale use can constitute a major environmental and health problem. In this systematic review, we investigate the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of various animal species and humans. The information provided indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects. It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates.
If anyone is coming to the defense of Monsanto it is because they are being paid or are suffering liberal brain damage. They are Nestle levels of corrupt, probably worse.
Oof, that was the stuff they hilariously claimed you could safely drink by the gallon, then refused to drink. Very good point that I've not considered before!
this is all pretty new to me tbh, are we getting harmful levels of exposure just from eating produce or is this more about acute exposure?
There is evidence that the amount we consume is harmful but Monsanto is one of the most powerful lobbies in the world so the information stays muddled. There are some countries in the EU that have banned it or are planning to but the EU as a whole reversed course after cash infusions.
I didn't want to go into "one health" or "ecosystemic health is human health" concepts because I felt it would derail the conversation, but I think they're important to take into account.
I think it is fundamentally eurocentric to consider that the agricultural and food systems in which one lives aren't deeply linked to one's wellbeing, and that the indiscriminate use of GMOs couldn't have an effect on that.
Oh fuck.
Nah, no worries, I don't follow it anymore, but while I was I took a salt supplement with potassium. Ended it because it just made life too difficult
I always knew I was getting the wall, but i didn't realise to would be so soon
(I did Keto with a pretty severe calorie deficit and lost 35kg, which I kept off for a year. I then went to America for a holiday/got married, got plantar fasciitis from social sport that stopped me from walking comfortably and COVID happened and I put 40kg back on lmao)
yeah, I was and already was getting checkups and my bloods done decently regularly because my blood pressure and cholesterol were already shit before 2018 when i did it
I am nowhere near it now because I am, to say it politely, a gourmand
I did the version of keto where you just don't eat bread or sugary food. I think it was adequately sloppy enough to prevent any chudification
holy fuck i'm so sorry, from your reaction earlier today I thought you'd been on the diet
I gotta say I'm disappointed to hear that one. It tracks, but I've always liked how much it upset my most racist relatives
I don't understand how more people aren't offended that Jesus is depicted as an Italian.
The MSG thing is so wild to me, why is that a thing??? It's such a good ingredient