GlacialTurtle

Reminder: There is no legitimate debate. These people are not interested in safety or science or womens sports, they're interested in maintaining a simplistic gender binary against reality.

Right-wing media spent years demanding that President Donald Trump ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports. He complied. But rather than declare victory, conservative outlets immediately demanded even stricter measures, expanding their campaign to include intersex athletes and calling for invasive genetic testing. Their goal isn't fairness; it's perpetual outrage and ideological policing of women's bodies.

After Trump signed an executive order to ban trans women from women’s sports, right-wing media figures quickly pivoted to a months-old controversy centered around Olympic boxer Imane Khelif, a cisgender Algerian athlete who was falsely accused of being transgender last summer. Khelif was disqualified from the 2023 Women’s World Boxing Championships, even though she was assigned female at birth. Despite this, conservative media have revisited Khelif’s case as justification for excluding intersex women, labelling the boxer as “male” in order to claim Trump's ban isn't strict enough, and once again moving the goalposts in their ongoing obsession over who counts as a woman in 2025.

[...]

By March 6, City Journal began explicitly including intersex athletes in its push for expanded bans, advocating for chromosomal tests to exclude women with differences in sex development. Its writer asserted that “in rare cases, though more commonly in developing countries, doctors may misidentify a male newborn’s sex due to female-like or ambiguous genitalia caused by a developmental condition. … Just this summer, a loophole of this kind allowed two male athletes, Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting, to compete as women and win gold medals in boxing at the 2024 Paris Olympics.” If evidence exists for this claim about private and personal details of Khelif and Lin’s bodies, it is entirely absent from the article (seriously, go take a look). According to BBC, the International Olympic Committee has stated that “Lin and Khelif were ‘born and raised as women.’”

[...]

his new phase targets intersex women — individuals with differences in sex development who've been recognized as female their entire lives — who it asserts are simply “male.” Under policies championed by conservative figures, women with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome — who have XY chromosomes but develop female anatomy — could be excluded entirely from women's sports. Many women with AIS only learn about their genetic makeup during puberty when menstruation doesn't begin.

Similarly, women with 5-alpha reductase deficiency or Swyer syndrome — conditions resulting in the presence of XY chromosomes but female-typical sex characteristics — would also face disqualification under strict chromosomal definitions. These conditions occur in roughly 1 in 100 people. Although rare, women born with XY chromosomes have given birth in the past.

History demonstrates the harm of such restrictive policies. Olympic medalist Caster Semenya endured invasive scrutiny and discrimination over her naturally occurring testosterone levels, exemplifying the potential consequences of implementing genetic testing requirements. Conservative media continue to advocate for mandatory genetic testing, despite evidence that it could unfairly exclude cisgender and intersex women alike.

[...]

Right-wing media's escalating demands following Trump's anti-trans executive orders represent an ongoing pattern. As Media Matters previously reported, conservative figures consistently deemed even Trump's most extreme anti-trans policies insufficient. Their end goal isn't fairness; it's continuous outrage, exclusion, and control.

DHS can't articulate a reason that Mahmoud Khalil, arrested and supposedly had his green card revoked for being involved with pro-Palestine prostest, for why he's been arrested other than the fact he organised protests.

President Trump has ramped up efforts to deliver on a campaign promise to carry out the largest ever deportation of immigrants in U.S. history.

Parallel to those deportation plans is a crackdown on what the administration calls antisemitism on college campuses.

Both efforts came to the forefront this week when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate student, who has not been charged with any crime yet. This is likely the first high profile arrest of a legal permanent resident in connection with the pro-Palestinian protests that rippled across the nation's campuses last year. Trump has vowed that this is the first of many arrests to come as he lays a framework for increased deportations. Trump officials are standing beside his efforts and doubling down on accusations that Khalil's actions align with those of a terrorist.

One of those officials is Troy Edgar, the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who defended Khalil's arrest on Morning Edition. When NPR's Michel Martin asked him to explain what Khalil did to be arrested, aligned with terrorist activity and potentially deported, Edgar did not give a clear answer.

"I think you can see it on TV, right?" Edgar said. "We've invited and allowed the student to come into the country, and he's put himself in the middle of the process of basically pro-Palestinian activity. And at this point, like I said, the Secretary of State can review his visa process at any point and revoke it."

Khalil, a Syrian national of Palestinian descent, does not have a U.S. visa of any kind. Therefore an immigration judge would be the one to decide whether or not his status is revoked, not administration officials. He does however hold a green card, making him a lawful permanent resident in the U.S.

[...]

Troy Edgar: I think what you saw there is you've got somebody that has come into the country on a visa. And as he's going through the visa process, he is coming in to basically be a student that is not going to be supporting terrorism. So, the issue is he was let into the country on this visa. He has been promoting this antisemitism activity at the university. And at this point, the State Department has revoked his visa for supporting a terrorist type organization. And we're the enforcing agencies, so we've come in to basically arrest him.

Martin: A White House official told the Free Press that there's no allegation that he broke any laws. So, again, I have to ask, what specifically constitutes terrorist activity that he was supporting? What exactly do you say he did?

Edgar: Well, like I said, when you apply for a visa, you go through the process to be able to say that you're here on a student visa, that doesn't afford you all the rights of coming in and basically going through this process, agitating and supporting Hamas. So, at this point, yeah, the Secretary of State and the State Department maintains the right to revoke the visa, and that's what they've done.

Martin: How did he support Hamas? Exactly what did he do?

Edgar: Well, I think you can see it on TV, right? This is somebody that we've invited and allowed the student to come into the country, and he's put himself in the middle of the process of basically pro-Palestinian activity. And at this point, like I said, the Secretary of State can review his visa process at any point and revoke it.

Martin: He's a permanent resident. He's not a visa holder. He's a legal permanent resident. He has the green card, at least he did, until it's alleged that it was revoked.

If the allegation is that Mr. Khalil organized protests and made speeches after which other people engaged in prohibited activity, or, say, violent activity. Well, Mr. Trump gave a political speech on January 6, 2021, after which some individuals engaged in violent and illegal acts. How is this any different?

Edgar: President Trump's a citizen and the president of the United States. This is a person that came in under a visa. And again, the secretary of state at any point can take a look and evaluate that visa and decide if they want to revoke it.

Martin: He's a legal permanent resident. I have to keep insisting on that. He is a legal permanent resident.

"If I'm going down for genocide, you are too, kid."

Imagine consolidating behind this guy in 2020 only for him to be heavily responsible for your loss in 2024. No sympathy for these dipshits.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris both understood the importance of being seen as the bigger change agent.

For Trump, that meant continuing to promise an antidote to the Biden-Harris years.

For Harris, there was more flexibility to define her brand of change.

She could risk looking hypocritical by making clean breaks with Biden on policies she had supported as vice president, rejecting parts of their record to forge her own agenda. She could identify new issues to run on that avoided the pitfalls of turning her back on the Biden era. Or she could rely on voters to see her gender, her genes, and her “lived experience” — a middle-class upbringing, schools outside the Ivy League, and a career as a prosecutor — as symbols of change.

Biden and his loyalists took the first option off the table.

He would say publicly that Harris should do what she must to win. But privately, including in conversations with her, he repeated an admonition: let there be no daylight between us. “No daylight” was the phrase he had used as a vice presidential candidate in 2008 to bind Republican nominee John McCain to an unpopular president, George W. Bush.

Almost everywhere she went, Harris walked among former Biden aides who sought to defend his presidency. Her campaign was run by a former White House deputy chief of staff — whom she had just empowered to box out her own confidants — and a phalanx of department heads who had served Biden until the previous month.

[...]

When Harris sat down with Walz and CNN’s Dana Bash the last week of August, the segment produced a little bit of news: Harris said she would name a Republican to serve in her Cabinet. She also said that she no longer supported a ban on fracking. Her 2019 call to end the practice threatened to hurt her in Pennsylvania, even though she had adopted Biden’s no-ban policy as his vice presidential candidate in 2020. But the first portion of the one-on-two interview — the part more viewers were likely to watch — featured Harris reciting a laundry list of Biden’s policies.

Sitting next to Walz in a chair that seemed to place her below him and heaping praise on Biden’s record, Harris did not look like a candidate seeking the highest office in the land. The whole scene reinforced the criticism that the vice president was either incapable, or afraid, of answering tough questions on her own.

For the rest of the campaign, her team required that she be provided a chair that met certain specifications: “Leg height no less than 15 inches; floor to top of seat height no less than 18.9 inches; arms on chairs may not be very high, arms must fall at a natural height; chairs must be firm.”

No matter how firm her chair, the question facing Harris was whether she could build a sturdy platform.

Her rallies and convention speech had not answered the question of why she was running for president — or how her vision for the country would deliver for voters — other than having been next in line. She was running out of major moments to explain a vision to a broad audience. Her September 10 debate with Trump would offer another opportunity — perhaps a last chance before voters cast early ballots — to establish that key part of her narrative.

But the day of the debate Biden called to give Harris an unusual kind of pep talk — and another reminder about the loyalty he demanded. No longer able to defend his own record, he expected Harris to protect his legacy.

Whether she won or lost the election, he thought, she would only harm him by publicly distancing herself from him — especially during a debate that would be watched by millions of Americans. To the extent that she wanted to forge her own path, Biden had no interest in giving her room to do so. He needed just three words to convey how much all of that mattered to him.

“No daylight, kid,” Biden said.

Democrats playing footsy with fascist Charlie Kirk over hating trans people. This is the party that's supposed to be the great defenders of LGBT people?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a pioneer for LGBTQ+ rights who decades ago upset leaders in his own party when he defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, suggested Democrats were in the wrong in allowing transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports.

“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said in his debut podcast episode of “This is Gavin Newsom.” “I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.”

Newsom’s comments on the issue roiling political debates nationwide came in a conversation with influential MAGA-world figure Charlie Kirk, the campus culture warrior who leads the organization Turning Point USA and is a close ally of President Donald Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr.

Newsom also agreed that the most politically destructive attack ads from Trump’s campaign featured Kamala Harris’ support for providing taxpayer-funded gender transition-related medical care for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.

“She didn’t even react to it, which was even more devastating,” Newsom said, suggesting upward of 90 percent of Americans disagreed with Harris’ position. “Then you had the video [of Harris] as a validator. Brutal,” Newsom added. “It was a great ad.”

Kirk challenged Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, to speak out against AB Hernandez, a transgender high school track star from California whose triple jump event in the women’s competition is drawing fierce backlash from the right. Newsom said he has four children of his own — including two daughters — and noted that both he and his wife participated in college-level sports, she in soccer and he in baseball.

“I revere sports, so the issue of fairness is completely legit,” Newsom said. “And I saw that — the last couple years, boy did I [see] how you guys were able to weaponize that issue at another level.”

Kirk challenged Newsom over his use of the word “weaponize,” and Newsom replaced it with “highlight.”

The video is yet another case of Democrats resenting their base for expecting them to stand up for anything.

In a leaked recording, State Senator Elena Parent (D-42) said she’d vote for Republican transgender healthcare bans because trans rights are too “unpopular."

"You can go right to heck. I don’t think I will lose re-election based on you screaming at me"

The insane flipping back and forth in the video of declaring yourself pro-lgbt whilst signalling you'll vote for anti-trans legislation, to then attack the person asking them obvious questions by declaring that the question implies because Republicans are in charge that they should adopt opposite positions and they're not going to vote for things that are "unpopular".

The democratic politician distilled: You need to vote for me because I support you and I'm not as bad as Republicans, but when it comes down to it I will throw you under the bus and get mad at you for asking me about it and implying I might not be a good person.

But swearing is a no-no so I'll say Heck as I support you being oppressed by the state.

This is at the same time as Israel has been stopping entry of all goods and supplies into Gaza. The deputy speaker of Israeli parliament is also calling for the bombing of food stocks in Gaza by the way.

The EU condemns the refusal of Hamas to accept the extension of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza. Israel's subsequent decision to block the entry of all humanitarian aid into Gaza could potentially result in humanitarian consequences.

The EU calls for a rapid resumption of negotiations on the second phase of the ceasefire, and expresses its strong support to the mediators.

A permanent ceasefire would contribute to the release of all remaining Israeli hostages while ensuring the necessary conditions for recovery and reconstruction in Gaza to begin. All parties have a political responsibility to make this a reality.

The EU reiterates its calls for full, rapid, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid at scale for Palestinians in need and for allowing and facilitating humanitarian workers and international organisations to operate effectively and safely inside Gaza.

The EU civilian Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) is ready to continue its work if requested by the parties. Thanks to its presence, nearly 3,000 people have so far crossed the border into Egypt since 1 February.

Meanwhile:

The deputy speaker of Israel’s parliament and a leading member of Netanyahu’s party calling for the bombing of food stocks in Gaza just a few hours ago.

You won’t see this mentioned by any European or American leaders, or by most western media.

https://bsky.app/profile/mehdirhasan.bsky.social/post/3ljfehifmrc2e

Israel claims it's a US plan but has not confirmed it.

Matt Duss, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Al Jazeera that he had “very good reason to disbelieve” what Netanyahu had said about US support for Israel’s unilateral decision to not proceed to the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal.

Netanyahu had called the proposal for the extension of the first phase of the deal the “Witkoff plan”, in reference to the US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, but Duss said that “as far as I’ve been able to tell, this is in fact the Netanyahu plan”.

Duss said that it was uncertain how much support Netanyahu had from Trump, but that if the US administration was backing Israel in reneging on the terms of the ceasefire deal, it would be a continuation of US policy under Trump’s predecessor President Joe Biden, where US officials would insist that Hamas was the party not agreeing to a ceasefire, even when the opposite was true.

“I very much hope that Netanyahu is not telling the truth, because the terms of the deal are that phase one would continue as negotiations for phase two are worked out,” Duss said, before adding that Witkoff’s next moves would shed more light on the US position.

https://aje.io/86m0jg?update=3549731

Outrage as Israel cuts off Gaza aid to pressure Hamas to accept new ceasefire proposal

Also I had to log on to reddit and see a photo op of Euro leaders on the front page with the caption "leaders of the free world" and people glazing Keir Starmer I guess because Ukraine.

Yet more Democrats doubling down on "we have to be more racist", "we need to have less principles", "it's actually the lefts fault somehow".

Reminder that here in reality, Democrats ran republican campaign messaging during the election whilst Kamala failed to distance herself from literal fucking genocide in response to the bases concerns nor did they provide any meaningful economic policies as answers.

When several dozen Democratic political operatives and elected officials gathered at a tony resort off the Potomac River last month, frustration boiled over at the left wing of their party.

Democrats had become too obsessed with “ideological purity tests” and should push back “against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging,” according to a document of takeaways from the gathering produced by the center-left group Third Way and obtained by POLITICO.

The group of moderate Democratic consultants, campaign staffers, elected officials and party leaders who gathered in Loudoun County, Virginia for a day-and-a-half retreat, where they plotted their party’s comeback, searched for why the party lost in November — and what to do about it. Much of what they focused their ire on centered on the kind of identity politics that they believed lost them races up and down the ballot.

One of the key ways to win back the trust of the working class, some gathered there argued, was to “reduce far-left influence and infrastructure” on the party, according to the takeaways document. That included building a more moderate campaign infrastructure and talent pipeline, pushing “back against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging,” and refusing to participate in “far-left candidate questionnaires” and “forums that create ideological purity tests.”

The gathering resulted in five pages of takeaways, a document POLITICO obtained from one of the participants. (Not all attendees endorsed each point, and the document — and Third Way — kept the identities of participants private.)

[...]

Those gathered then laid out 20 solutions for how Democrats can regain working-class trust and reconnect with them culturally.

Among their takeaways:

• The party should “embrace patriotism, community, and traditional American imagery.”

• Candidates should “get out of elite circles and into real communities (e.g., tailgates, gun shows, local restaurants, churches).”

• The party needs to “own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities and commit to improving local government.”

The party, many of those gathered also argued, needs to “develop a stronger, more relatable Democratic media presence (podcasts, social media, sports broadcasting).”

Bennett said that, with the meeting coming just three months after the election, “we didn’t expect to have a lot of answers about exactly what the Democratic offer to the working class on the economy ought to be going forward. We were still kind of picking through the rubble here.”

A remarkable set of declarations from current and former employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau detail Acting Director Russ Vought’s scheme to illegally eliminate the agency, and the consequences for thousands of CFPB employees and millions of consumers left vulnerable to predatory financial scams.

The fourteen declarations, filed on Thursday in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, provide an unusually direct window into how the Trump administration sought to cripple an agency that has returned more than $21 billion to consumers over its lifespan. And the employees call out CFPB’s current chief operating officer, Adam Martinez, for lying in his declaration to the court that the agency is just going through a normal transition process in the transfer of political power.

CFPB has been under a “stop work” order since Vought took over the agency on an acting basis. No work has been performed and employees are on paid leave; the order was characterized as a work stoppage to get around federal employment laws limiting administrative leave to ten days in a calendar year. Seven outstanding enforcement cases were dismissed in the past week; the latest was a case against Trans Union.

One employee, who used the pseudonym “Alex Doe” for fear of retaliation, recounted personal experience of a February 13 meeting between CFPB leadership and the Office of Personnel Management, where a three-step process was discussed. First, all probationary and “term employees” (which have a fixed term of employment) would be fired, which occurred that day. Then, entire offices, divisions, and units would be let go, a culling of roughly 1,200 employees, which was supposed to happen the next day, on Valentine’s Day. Finally, the bureau would “reduce altogether” 60 to 90 days later.

According to another declaration, the intention was to fire everyone but five statutory positions named specifically in the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the agency. “One Senior Executive said that CFPB will become a ‘room at Treasury, White House, or Federal Reserve with five men and a phone in it,’ the declaration reads.

A second pseudonymous employee who attended the February 13 meeting declared that Martinez described the CFPB as in “wind down mode,” and that all “statutorily-required functions would be transferred to other agencies.” This is illegal without an act of Congress. That employee also described an email dated February 11, where the chief financial officer of CFPB, Jafnar Gueye, was described as discussing with the Federal Reserve how to return CFPB’s funds back to the central bank. (CFPB is funded entirely through the Federal Reserve.)

This essay by Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov (1924–79), “On the Coincidence of Logic with Dialectics and the Theory of Knowledge of Materialism,” was published in his most widely known work, Dialectical Logic: Essays on Its History and Theory (first edition in Russian, 1974). The English translation by H. Campbell Creighton is from the edition published by Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977. In this adapted essay, Ilyenkov discusses the idea of the coincidence of dialectics, logics, and theory of knowledge, which was one of the hallmarks of the Ilyenkovian current in post-Stalin Soviet philosophy. Originally, the idea was jotted down by V. I. Lenin in his Philosophical Notebooks when he was reading G. W. F. Hegel in 1914 and 1915, as a critique against the separation of the theory of knowledge from other fields of philosophy.

Ilyenkov was one of the most important and controversial Soviet Marxist philosophers. He contributed substantially to the Marx Renaissance that emerged in the so-called Thaw Period and aimed at the reconstruction of Marx’s original methodology. In 1960, his first book, The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s “Capital,” was published, to be followed by important articles and studies on the concept of the ideal and on problems of dialectical logic. Ilyenkov was known as an ardent critic of technocratic tendencies in the Soviet Union. He stressed that socialist society should express humanist values and not merely be an engineering project. Although Ilyenkov had constant problems with the Soviet philosophical establishment, which viewed his innovatory ideas with suspicion, he did not regard himself as a dissident and remained a member of the Party. He died by his own hands on March 21, 1979.

Certain Democrats remain inexplicably in denial about Biden and his brain leaking out of his ears during a live debate and even internal polling showing repeatedly he was almost certainly going to lose badly.

Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre lambasted Democratic leadership for attacking Joe Biden like a “firing squad” at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics forum Wednesday, saying the party should have united behind the former president.

“I have never seen anything like that,” she said. “It was truly, truly unfortunate. And I think it hurt us more than folks realized to have done that.”

Jean-Pierre attended a discussion with spring IOP fellow Brittany Shepherd and Anoushka Chander ’25 — her first public event since leaving the White House in January.

Jean-Pierre stood by Biden’s achievements, his cognitive fitness, and his decision to run for re-election during the talk. She echoed statements from Michael C. Donilon — a senior advisor to Biden and a current IOP fellow — who defended the former president on the same stage just two weeks ago.

“I believe in what we were trying to get done,” Jean-Pierre said. “I would not have come back into the administration, I don’t think, for anybody else.”

And from Donilon's talk:

Michael C. Donilon, the chief strategist behind Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign, said Democratic leadership “lost its mind” when they ousted Biden from the party’s ticket, arguing he was their best chance at keeping the White House.

“The Democratic primary voters chose Joe Biden to be the nominee of the Democratic Party,” said Donilon, a spring fellow at the Institute of Politics. “The Democratic party leadership, and the biggest funders in America, didn’t.”

In a wide-ranging post mortem at the IOP Thursday evening, Donilon remained adamant that the former president would “still be the best” for the job – despite his poor performance in a June debate.

“Lots of people have terrible debates,” he said. “Usually, the party doesn’t lose its mind. But that’s what happened — it just melted down.”

Donilon, a member of Biden’s inner circle for over 40 years, denounced claims that the president’s acuity and judgment declined as an “impression” perpetuated by the media.

“It was getting written as this fact, ‘Oh, Biden was mentally impaired,’” Donilon said. “I don’t know how much time any of those people spent with him — I know how much time I spent with him. I know what I saw.”

Reminder the White House spent his second term limiting access to Biden, not showing him negative polling and negative stories, and denying there were any problems until he turned a question on abortion into incoherent mumbling about immigrants murdering women.

An interesting article describing the experience of YDSA organisers running an introductory course into socialism and Marxism.

Excerpt:

At the start of this class I was confused about socialism. As most of American society is. I was conflicted between what I had learned about Marx and Marxism in my past classes and all of the times I had been told it failed. I was not aware that in actuality the examples we’ve been told about the cautionary tales of socialism were not examples of true or pure socialism. I’d been told that Cuba was a poor, struggling, tyrannical state where the people were suffering. I had no idea that none of this was true and Cuba was strides beyond American society in many ways. I didn’t understand what unions did or their cultural and historic significance, and I was unaware of the capitalist greed going on within our campus affecting my own teachers. In my position statement I don’t think I was fully aware that so many of the causes I’m passionate about are tied to socialism, universal education, universal healthcare, equality, climate justice, etc. Embarrassingly I did not even understand the concept of private property and what it would mean if the government banned it. I had pictured a dystopian image of a neighborhood with every house identical to the next. All of these mental images that I was indoctrinated to believe around socialism were hard to shake, it took me a while to ditch that mindset and see it for what it is.

Taking this course opened my eyes to the reality of socialism and made me question why it had been censored so much. Although I knew that news was manipulative and every side has their own agenda, I don’t think I fully understood that sources I considered reputable, like the New York Times for example, to be untrustworthy. I didn’t realize this until I used a New York Times article in my first essay that was misrepresenting socialism. Being raised in a liberal place I always associated Fox News, and other conservative sources with manipulation and untrustworthiness. I didn’t really consider the fact that liberal sources also were guilty of this. So many of the changes I want to see in the world are inherently socialist.[1]

Above is the first section of a final reflection letter written by one of the students who took the course “The Rhetoric & Writing of Socialism” at the University of Colorado Boulder in Fall 2023. This was written by a student with no previous experience with activism, social movements, or socialist organizations. Apart from several YDSA comrades who also took the class, most of the students in the course were similarly bereft of these experiences. But, this student’s response was by no means unique. In fact, this response was standard from several of the students in the class: a turn from vitriolic mainstream liberal or conservative positions on socialism to positive associations if not outright affinity for our ideological commitments. Clearly, something positive took place in this course and it's worth exploring why and how it happened.

[....]

One of the major concerns I expressed in my last article for Cosmonaut was that overt propagandizing could potentially alienate students; or worse, have them actively work against me or the YDSA comrades in the class. Instead, multiple students wrote positively about the course content and classroom environment. To quote one student directly, our class provided “a classroom environment where every student felt comfortable to share their thoughts and opinions.”[2] Reading through these qualitative comments, which were submitted by 16 of the 19 students in the class, it quickly becomes apparent that perception of the course was overwhelmingly positive.

Thus, it appears that overt propagandizing does not bother students, and the qualitative comments offer another reason for why this was. First is the importance of creating a positive, laid back classroom environment. This kind of environment was necessary given the contentious topics we covered. In a class where I took seriously the now dated but still applicable call from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1962 to create a culture of “controversy” and lean into difficult political conversations, we were no strangers to sensitive topics.[3] As can be clearly seen in the syllabus, we covered anarchism, the history of socialism in the United States, the efficacy of electoralism, the intersection of feminism and the civil rights movement with socialism, as well as other related topics.[4] Students were asked to write a manifesto where they clearly articulated what they thought about the controversial topics we covered in class. I even had an anarchist organizer come to class who talked openly about their confrontations with the police.

However, despite all this controversy, students took everything in stride because we treated one another like human beings. We joked around. We goofed off. I did everything I could to counter the idea of the “professional” college professor who must be detached from their students. Instead, I showed them pictures and videos of my daughter. We took a day to toss a frisbee back-and-forth. We talked about our lives outside the classroom. This created buy-in for the students who weren’t already socialists.

Excerpt:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has ordered the digital and physical destruction of 18 publications on workplace safety practices, according to an internal February 7 email obtained by Popular Information. The email says the publications have been removed from the OSHA website and tells staff that any physical copies should be "disposed of or recycled."

The purge appears to be part of the Trump administration's effort to terminate any activities associated with "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility," or DEIA. The email advises OSHA staff that "[i]f you have wallet cards that include language, or can be interpreted, on DEIA or gender ideology, please dispose of them as well."

Popular Information has obtained archived versions of most of the deleted publications. Almost all of them are not associated with DEIA topics but appear to have been targeted because they include a DEIA-related keyword used in a completely different context.

For example, one of the purged publications is "OSHA Best Practices for Protecting EMS Responders During Treatment and Transport of Victims of Hazardous Substance Releases." Popular Information was able to obtain an archived version of the publication through the Internet Archive. The 104-page document — a collaboration between dozens of government agencies and NGOs — was published in 2009 to detail the steps "employers need to take to protect their EMS responders from becoming additional victims while on the front line of medical response." DEIA issues are not discussed.

On page 94 of the publication, however, the words "diversity" and "diverse" are used in a context that has nothing to do with race or gender. The publication notes there is a "diversity of state-specific certification, training, and regulatory requirements" for "EMS agencies" and "diverse conditions under which EMS responders could work." Similarly, on page 96, the publication notes, "EMS responders are a diverse group" and "risks vary with their primary and secondary roles."

"Guidelines for Nursing Homes: Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders," is a 44-page publication released in 2009. It provides "recommendations for nursing home employers to help reduce the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in their facilities." It has nothing to do with DEIA. On page 10, however, it notes that "development of MSDs may be related to genetic causes, gender, age, and other factors." The single use of the word "gender" appears to have flagged the publication for deletion and destruction.

Another purged publication, "Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respiratory Protection Standard," contains the sentence, "[t]he new computer software reflects the concept of government leadership through collaboration with diverse technical organizations." It has nothing to do with DEIA.