[-] dandelion 102 points 1 month ago

As she waits for a decision in the Ter Apel asylum seekers’ center in the Netherlands, Arc is pessimistic about her chances. She says Dutch government employees have told her they don’t want to “p*** off” the U.S. by branding it an unsafe country.

She expects to be deported, and when that happens, she fears that the Trump administration will find some pretext to imprison her with men.

“I don’t want to be the person that makes the Netherlands decide it’s not safe for trans people [in the U.S.], and change their policy,” she says. “But I suspect that one of us would have to get killed for that to change.

“Which one of us will get to be that person?”

[-] dandelion 74 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

more importantly he peddled neo-Nazi conspiracies and claimed Jews control the media, education, non-profits, etc. and are pushing "cultural Marxism"

this guy was pushing neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories - it's so much worse than comparing abortions to the Holocaust, lol

[-] dandelion 68 points 5 months ago

yes, she's involved in the production and will definitely profit from it

[-] dandelion 86 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Considering dolls is a term applied only to trans women, he should have just said "a term of endearment for trans women". The only reason he didn't is because he's anti-trans, and maybe he doesn't even understand that "dolls" is a term specific to trans women, or that trans men even exist, a lot of anti-trans bigots are obsessed with trans women and think the only trans people are trans women; there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don't get the same attention.

The bathroom debate shows this mindset, anti-trans activist want trans women to use men's restrooms, but they aren't thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men into women's restrooms, leading to this kind of situation:

So the anti-trans movement claims they are keeping men out of women's restrooms, while doing exactly the opposite.

I think the anti-trans movement wants to claim that the entire idea of trans people is ideologically driven, but they have it in reverse - the gender binary and anti-trans movement is ideologically driven, while the position that trans people exists and should have gender-affirming care is based on actual empirical evidence. The science shows reality is much more complicated than the gender binary, and that being trans is biologically determined, genetically inherited, and part of natural human variation throughout our history as a species.

So it seems acknowledging the reality and gender of trans people is not so much ideologically driven as much as it is more aligned with reality than the status quo of assigning gender according to a model of binary sex based an a quick inspection of genitals at birth, which we know is ideologically driven. The only reason to reject the undisputed science is for religious and political reasons, there is no actual debate or ambiguity about the science. Every single major medical and scientific association endorses gender affirming care for minors and adults, there is a firm consensus on this. These organizations are typically conservative, not "woke", and they only support those treatments because they are the only known effective treatments of gender dysphoria.

The anti-trans movement has more in common with young earth creationism, the anti-vaxx movement, and other anti-science movements, which are often politically motivated and intersect with conservative forms of Christianity. These are truly ideologically based movements, and they support views of reality based not on what is empirically demonstrated but rather based on a dogmatic interpretation of religious texts.

For example, Matt Walsh's anti-trans film What is a Woman was compared to antivax films like VAXXED or the anti-evolution film Expelled!.

[-] dandelion 101 points 6 months ago

wow, that's really out there for being bee movie erotica

18
submitted 6 months ago by dandelion to c/WomensStuff@lazysoci.al

I've been thinking about getting a manicure and getting something sorta pearly and opalescent, it's light and I guess reminds me of the ocean.

Anyway - what nail styles do you all do for summer, what are the 2025 trends?

[-] dandelion 67 points 6 months ago

they're no longer following the Constitution, in case anyone has noticed ...

[-] dandelion 93 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/4chan-the-internets-most-infamous-forum-is-down-following-an-alleged-hack-142516392.html

According to screenshots shared on Imgur, it appears a hacker gained shell access to 4chan's hosting server. They then went on to post images of the site's phpmyadmin page, and appear to have doxed the entire moderation team alongside many of the site's registered users. While it seems some users took steps to protect their identities, many appear to have used their primary email address to register for the forum, with .edu and even .gov addresses reportedly appearing in the list leaked emails.

It's unclear what this means for the future of 4chan, but some social media and Reddit users are speculating this could be the end of the internet's most infamous forum. In addition to doxing much of 4chan's userbase, the hacker also appears to have leaked the site's source code, revealing security holes that have existed since around the time Hiroyuki Nishimura bought the forum from creator Christoper Poole. It may take months to rebuild a more secure version of 4chan.

If this is the end of 4chan, it would be the most significant de-platforming of extreme right-wing internet users since Kiwi Farms temporarily went down in 2022.

[-] dandelion 100 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Read the actual Watchlist entry instead of Time magazine: https://monitor.civicus.org/watchlist-march-2025/

The United States of America (USA) has been added to our Watchlist as the country faces increasing undue restrictions on civic freedoms under President Donald Trump’s second term. Gross abuses of executive power raise serious concerns over the freedoms of peaceful assembly, expression and association.

Following his inauguration on 20 January 2025, Donald Trump has issued at least 125 executive orders, dismantling federal policies with profound implications for human rights and the rule of law. Some of these orders have eliminated federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, falsely framing them as discriminatory, and have introduced measures targeting undocumented migrants and transgender and non-conforming people.

Since mid-January, many civil society organisations, both in the US and abroad, have been forced to terminate or scale back essential human rights and humanitarian programmes due to growing uncertainty caused by the arbitrary suspension of foreign aid and a broad freeze on federal funding. The lack of clear guidelines has sparked legal challenges at the national level.

The administration has taken steps to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a decades-old institution, and laid off thousands of its employees. It has also withdrawn from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Human Rights Council, exited the Paris Climate Agreement, rejected the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, and announced sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), targeting its personnel as well as individuals and entities that cooperate with it. These actions could further undermine global efforts for climate justice, human rights, and civic freedoms.

These measures come amid a broader potential curb on the freedom of association. On 21 November 2024, the US House of Representatives passed a bill allowing the Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profits it deems to be supporting terrorism, without due process guarantees. This would grant the executive branch sweeping authority to financially cripple civil society organisations based on broad and vague criteria.

The sustained onslaught on peaceful pro-Palestine solidarity at university campuses has seen students and faculty members increasingly subjected to harsh sanctions without justification. On 30 January 2025, President Donald Trump, signed an executive order purportedly aimed at combating antisemitism, which calls for the cancellation of visas and the deportation of non-citizen college students and others who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests. On the same day, reports alleged that a far-right group was compiling a list of pro-Palestine protesters for potential deportation.

Authorities have also targeted climate justice activists protesting the Mountain Valley Pipeline project in Virginia and financial institutions supporting fossil fuel expansion. Another concern is the growing role of private corporations in suppressing environmental activism. Two key developments exemplify this: the USD 300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace by the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline; and research exposing the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving the proliferation of anti-protest laws.

The first months of 2025 have seen an alarming legislative push in multiple states, further threatening restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly. At least 12 state-level bills introduced between January and February 2025 would impose new restrictions on protests. Notably, bills in Indiana (SB 286), Iowa (HF 25), Missouri (HB 601), New York (S 723), and North Dakota (HB 1240) seek to criminalise the use of masks during protests. They could also expose protesters to heightened surveillance technologies and intimidation tactics, as evidenced by the doxingattempts over the past year against pro-Palestine protesters.

Meanwhile, Minnesota’s new bill (SF 1363) introduces new civil and criminal liabilities for those supporting protesters who engage peacefully in demonstrations on a critical public service facility, pipelines or other utility property. These restrictions show a broader trend since 2017 of escalating constraints on protests and could trigger a new wave of repression against those expressing dissenting views.

There are also serious concerns about freedom of expression and access to information, particularly for journalists covering politically sensitive issues. On 11 February 2025, two journalists from the Associated Press (AP) were banned access to White House-related press briefings due to the agency’s editorial policy to continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its internationally recognised denomination rather than the presidentially decreed “Gulf of America.” AP filed a lawsuit against administration officials, but a federal judge denied the agency’s request for the immediate restoration of full access to presidential events for its journalists, ruling that access to the president is at his discretion and not a constitutional right.

Moreover, on 25 February, the White House press secretary announced that the administration will decide which media outlets can access the presidential press pool. These recent decisions raised concerns about unprecedented restrictions on public access to independent reporting on government affairs.

9
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by dandelion to c/main

Hi there, I was trying to link an article written by Julia Serano in 2011:

https://juliaserano/.blog[no space]spot[dot]com/2011/09/transsexual-versus-transgender.html

(sorry, it replaces it here with removed as well, imagine there is no space and make the dot into . in your mind I guess)

When I click Save, it replaces blog[no space]spot[dot]com with *removed*:

https://juliaserano.*removed*/2011/09/transsexual-versus-transgender.html

Any idea what's going on?

EDIT: when I tried to submit the title of this post as blog[no space]spot[dot]com becomes *removed* I couldn't submit and I got a warning message saying "slurs" - I'm not familiar with blog spot dot com being a slur ...

44
submitted 6 months ago by dandelion to c/lesbians

I lived a lot of my life as a boy and man (gross), so relationships I had with women were visibly heterosexual in that period.

Nonetheless, because I was so effeminate as a man, I was commonly seen as gay and I often felt like I was not "straight-passing" even though my relationship was viewed as straight, even when I insisted I was straight, etc.

After transitioning, it feels like for the first time my effeminate nature aligned with my perceived female gender, and people no longer perceived me as gay - it's like I became "straight" for the first time in my life.

Simultaneously, my relationship went from straight to gay. When I was visibly trans and not cis-passing, the relationship was obviously "queer" or "gay" to other people, which made my partner very happy (she loves being visibly queer, which is not something I enjoy as much).

Once I started to pass as a cis woman, suddenly our relationship became perceived as platonic - people started asking if we need one or two checks at a restaurant where before they assumed we were together. Even when we are affectionate with one another it seems like people don't assume we are in a romantic relationship. It's like the relationship has become invisible.

I know from communities like /r/reallesbians that we often struggle to be visible to one another (esp. it seems for people to know who is a candidate to date), and people talk about what signals lesbians commonly use to identify to others that they are gay or bi, etc. - so I suspect others might feel the way I do too, it's like society doesn't consider my relationship "valid" anymore.

When I clarify that we are partners, it feels like we are given a second-class designation as a relationship, as though it were a relationship between young people or children. Whereas when we were perceived as straight I felt like we were treated like we were really together, that the relationship was serious.

Been thinking about this, so I thought I'd put it out there. Part of the problem is that I live in a homophobic and conservative place, so I know that doesn't help - does anyone have experiences moving to more liberal places where they felt suddenly like their queer relationship was taken more seriously?

Even when I was visibly trans, I think a lot of people still took our "queer"-visible relationship seriously because they coded it as still a kind of "heterosexual" relationship (between a male and a female). I feel like the cis-passing woman with woman relationship is considered less valid, taken less seriously by comparison.

103
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by dandelion to c/mtf

Yesterday I was in a car accident. I'm really OK (some mild brain injury and bruising), the car is not.

I had gone running, so I was wearing a t-shirt and leggings with an athletic skirt to cover my bits, I had no makeup on and was perhaps the least feminine I could be.

What surprised me was that the EMTs, firemen, and police all saw and interacted with me me as a woman, and not in that "being polite" way that some trans affirming liberals can be, I just think they had no idea I was trans. My gender survived even having to talk to the emergency responders, answering questions, etc.

In some sense none of this is new, people on the phone have correctly gendered me as a woman for maybe six months, but it doesn't stop my brain worms from making me hear a boy. Likewise with countless interactions in public now where people seem to see a woman. Still, all I see in a mirror is a boy most days.

In the ER, the nurses and office workers all assumed I was a woman. I was asked twice by the doctors if there was any possibility I could be currently pregnant.

All I'm saying is that yesterday was one of the most gender affirming days in my life. I don't think if they suspected I was trans they would treat me the way I was treated, I just managed to seamlessly navigate the world in ways that I never thought was going to be possible. It's not real to me, but I'm definitely just going to keep replaying those interactions over and over again. Maybe it will sink in.

Less than a year ago, the equivalent experience would have been very difficult, I was very much not passing and I looked like a man dressed as a woman to most people. I assumed it was just going to be like that the rest of my life, and that's still what it's like in my head.

I felt pretty emotional about it yesterday, about the culmination of so many hours put into voice training, struggling without a sense of hope about the future and arriving here anyway. I feel like I owe the trans community my whole life.

13
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by dandelion to c/Television@lemm.ee

Autogynophilia (AGP) is a debunked pseudo-science concept that trans women are motivated to transition primarily as a sexual fetish, and Mike White confirmed on a podcast with the anti-trans conservative Andrew Sullivan that the Sam Rockwell monologue in s03e05 is autogynophilic.

Here is a clip from the podcast on Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1joh7dd/creator_of_white_lotus_mike_white_appears_on/

For more about autogynophilia, see Julia Serano's article on the topic.

(see also Julia Serano's post on the White Lotus episode before Mike White went on to confirm he meant to reference AGP)

This comes after Mike White removed a scene mentioning a non-binary character from the show after Trump won the election:

“You originally found out that her daughter was actually nonbinary, maybe trans, and going by they/them,” Coon said. “You see Laurie struggling to explain it to her friends, struggling to use they/them pronouns, struggling with the language, which was all interesting.”

“It was only a short scene, but for me, it did make the question of whether Kate voted for Trump so much more provocative and personally offensive to Laurie, considering who her child is in the world,” Coon added.

According to the actor, Trump’s re-election made series creator Mike White hesitate about including that character detail in the final cut.

“The season was written before the election. And considering the way the Trump administration has weaponized the cultural war against transgender people even more since then, when the time came to cut the episode down, Mike felt that the scene was so small and the topic so big that it wasn’t the right way to engage in that conversation,” Coon continued.

Coon also said that White handles his characters with nuance: “They’re not just one thing.”

In another article it was clarified the scene was cut due to a political "vibe shift":

“The Trump thing becomes much more offensive to Laurie because of her daughter, but this was before Trump was reelected and before this war on the trans community was escalated,” Coon said, despite the fact that Republicans have been filing anti-trans legislation at the state level for the entirety of the 2020s. The actor added, “Mike felt that it was actually too political, or too far, or too distracting.”

White responded, saying that that conversation “felt right in March of last year.”

“Now, there’s a vibe shift. I don’t think that it was radical, but that’s not the kind of attention I want,” he said. “The politics of it could overwhelm whatever ideas I’m trying to talk about. And a lot of it was about time. Every episode is bulging at 60 minutes.”

I also got the sense from this season that conservative Christianity was given a more serious place, a kind of reverence, alongside Buddhism (which is a departure from the previous two seasons). There is the relevance of the Christian choir to the husband character, but there is also a Trump supporting conservative character:

In the far-ranging conversation, the cast discussed the reveal in episode three that Leslie Bibb’s character, Kate Bohr, is a Republican. “I do think people like Meghan McCain and her community are really gratified to see a conservative person on television,” Coon said.

The characters are bad, yes, but it's a thin line between satire and representation. In conjunction with going on a conservative podcast and using anti-trans terminology, there is a sense that Mike White is at best naive and negligent, and at worst bigoted.

Regardless of Mike White's character, meanwhile the anti-trans movement is claiming White Lotus for themselves and using the show to help push AGP into the public consciousness, are attempting to use the moment to promote their junk science ideas that trans women are just fetishists.

[-] dandelion 73 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Trans bathroom bans are ultimately just a means of driving trans people from public life entirely.

This is not an exaggeration, the anti-trans movement literally aims to "eradicate [trans people] from public life entirely", those are their words.

Here are some citations, numbers, and evidence to back up what you're saying and why we should view trans bathroom bans as genocidal rather than about safety, like anti-trans activists claim:

When laws permit transgender people to access sex-segregated spaces in accordance with their gender identities, crime rates do not increase. There is no association between trans-inclusive policies and more crime. As one of us wrote in a recent paper, this is likely because, just like cisgender folks, “transgender people use locker rooms and restrooms to change clothes and go to the bathroom,” not for sexual gratification or predatory reasons.

Conversely, when trans people are forced by law to use sex-segregated spaces that align with the sex assigned to them at birth instead of their gender identity, two important facts should be noted.

First, no studies show that violent crime rates against cisgender women and girls in such spaces decrease. In other words, cisgender women and girls are no safer than they would be in the absence of anti-trans laws. Certainly, the possibility exists that a cisgender man might pose as a woman to go into certain spaces under false pretenses. But that same possibility remains regardless of whether transgender people are lawfully permitted in those spaces.

Second, trans people are significantly more likely to be victimized in sex-segregated spaces than are cisgender people. For instance, while incarcerated in facilities designated for men, trans women are nine to 13 times as likely to be sexually assaulted as the men with whom they are boarded.

...

In society at large, between 84% and 90% of all crimes of sexual violence are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, not a stranger lurking in the shadows – or the showers or restroom stalls. But trans and nonbinary people feel very unsafe in bathrooms and locker rooms, though others experience relative safety there. In fact, the largest study of its kind found that upward of 75% of trans men and 64% of trans women reported that they routinely avoid public restrooms to minimize their chances of being harassed or assaulted.

from: https://theconversation.com/baseless-anti-trans-claims-fuel-adoption-of-harmful-laws-two-criminologists-explain-206570

These laws aren't designed to protect cis women, they are designed to police gender (this impacts cis people too!) and eliminate trans people.

55
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by dandelion to c/trans

I was having breakfast at a restaurant, and seated at the table nearest to me were two older ladies, one of whom was loud enough that I could hear what she was saying.

She was saying "females" need to do more to reach out and grab opportunity like they used to (I assume she was referring to second-wave style women's lib, breaking into the workplace, etc.? very confusing tbh). This was after some comments about female athletes that I caught the end of, she was saying how crazy the world is now and I think she was saying now that trans women are being included in women spaces.

I'm sitting to her left, and more than anything else I just wanted to ask her if she thought I was a woman. Instead I sat and listened to her talk at her friend about how much a victim Zelenskyy is because he didn't get enough support from Biden (!?), and that the U.S. military has fallen behind other countries and we're losing arms races (!!??), how she prays to God about it all, etc.

I think there's something wrong with me if my reaction to publicly aired transphobic comments is the desire for validation from the transphobe.

First of all, she's clueless and didn't clock me so I should have some sense of whether she perceives me as a woman, and second of all, her opinion is worthless precisely because she didn't clock me.

I tell myself what I want to know is what I'm doing wrong, so I can finesse my passing or at least be aware of my limitations & weaknesses and mitigate them. I've realized most cis people (and maybe especially older, conservative, or transphobic people) notice minor gender differences less and are more likely to overlook those differences.

But maybe this is less rational and more psychological, maybe it's just more satisfying to pass in front of a transphobe, maybe it's more emotionally validating if the person who thinks the world is crazy for letting men into women's restrooms sees that "man" is a woman.

Sorry, this story feels self-absorbed. I think this is like a confessional or something.

Some possible discussion topics:

  • tips or observations on how to overcome these insecurities?
  • any stories of interactions with transphobes of your own you want to share?
  • thoughts on Biden's absolutely tragic failure as a president to provide sufficient aid to Zelenskyy in his moment of need?

EDIT: oh, and I remember her talking confidently about how the pilot who crashed the helicopter was a DEI hire

7
submitted 6 months ago by dandelion to c/main

hi, I suspect if I did some searching I could find my answer (so apologies up front for being lazy and not doing enough research up-front 🙊) but I have noticed every time I type : and then start typing the name of an emoji, for example :sob: (i.e. 😭), there is a list of emojis that start to match what I'm typing:

The emojis rarely match the auto-complete I'm expecting (which is based on doing this in other contexts like Slack with standard unicode emojis), and often there are custom emojis in addition to the standard ones that if I accidentally tab and hit enter to accept, results in an embedded image.

Incidentally, my fingers somewhat automatically start to type emojis like :sob: and this auto-complete feature is essentially "broken" for me by the large number of custom image emojis (notice the emoji I'm looking to autocomplete when I type :sob isn't showing up in the top part of the list).

Admittedly this breaks my flow, but I'm not complaining as much as wondering what this custom image emoji feature is, whether it's a Lemmy thing or an instance specific thing, and how much other people use it (do other users like these custom emojis, and their easy / automatic finger flow is accustomed to these options)?

The custom emojis are cute, tho 😄

32
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by dandelion to c/mtf

content warning, I'm going to be glib and talk about misogyny and transphobia in a joking manner - I don't mean to harm anyone, and I don't want to upset anyone.


OK hear me out: trans-exclusionary radical feminists, at least the actual radfems who are often middle-aged and still stuck in second-wave feminism, should love gender-affirming care ... doesn't it do exactly what they would love to do to men? Like, a lot of these women are cultural feminists, they essentialise men and women and view women as superior and men as inherently violent, oppressive, and bad. At least that's been my experience.

So, for example, if a man wants to suppress testosterone and take estrogen, shouldn't TERFs' fear about violence from men and the (admittedly simplistic) narrative that testosterone is responsible for that violence and aggression motivate them to embrace enabling as many men as possible to suppress their testosterone and chemically castrate themselves with estrogen?

Even if they don't believe that makes the man a woman, shouldn't they believe it's an improvement?

It just sounds like a revenge fever-dream concocted by second-wave lesbian separatist: a woman goes about secretly injecting abusive men with estrogen to calm them down ... it just sounds like a revenge fantasy they would be into.

The plot of The Gate to Women's Country literally centers around this fantasy of castrating men to make "good" men.

And if that's not compelling, I know they love the stories about chopping off dicks - come on, if they really believe trans women are a bunch of men, shouldn't they support access to gender-affirming care like vaginoplasties that do exactly that?

TERFs should support gender-affirming care even if they don't believe trans women are women. If men are the enemy they should be the biggest fans of chemically castrating and cutting the dicks off men.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[-] dandelion 69 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Relevant facts:

  • she self identifies as a "moderate conservative", also identifying as a "centrist" who cares about "family values"
  • she is a devout Catholic
  • she lives in Illinois and traveled to Florida just to do this
  • before going to Florida, she sent letters to lawmakers stating her intention to break the law, including when and where she would and a photo of herself (police were thus posted at the location and time she indicated, hence why she was arrested)
  • she explicitly identifies as not a "political activist"
  • she is breaking the law because she thinks it is wrong (she is engaging in civil disobedience), though she did not expect to actually be arrested
  • she didn't consult any legal or advocacy groups before doing this
  • she was arrested upon going into the restroom and washing her hands, after cops posted at the bathroom told her not to; she was held in the men's ward of the Leon County Detention Facility overnight, and she faces 60 days of incarceration if convicted
  • she is back in Illinois but will have to fly back to Florida for hearings
  • she didn't expect to be arrested and regrets doing it

source: Tampa Bay Times (archive.ph link)

42
Cinnamon Toast Crunch bacon (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 6 months ago by dandelion to c/thomastheplankengine

just kidding, this isn't from a dream, it's real

(I missed April fools by a day.)

6
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by dandelion to c/acnh@lemmy.world

according to nookipedia, blue roses are the result of hybridizing two 1110 hybrid red roses, which are produced by cross-breeding a yellow rose with a 1011 hybrid pink flower.

You can get a 1011 hybrid pink rose from cross-breeding a store-bought red rose (2001) and a purple rose. There is also a chance that you get a 1011 hybrid pink rose from breeding store-bought red and white roses.

Here is the chart from Nookipedia:

It's not clear to me whether this is accurate, however - I have successfully bred each of these necessary roses, and so far none of the 1110 hybrid red roses have produced a blue rose ... They have produced more black, white, and red roses, however.

Maybe it's just a matter of time, since the blue rose is a 1.56% chance ...

28
CONSPIRACY | contrapoints (www.youtube.com)
submitted 7 months ago by dandelion to c/mtf

new contrapoints just dropped

27
submitted 7 months ago by dandelion to c/Dullsters@dullsters.net

they're not even half frosted anymore

[-] dandelion 94 points 10 months ago
[-] dandelion 70 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This article is written by James Hayton, a professor at a business school focused on "innovation" and "entrepreneurship", and who received funding from the Nuffield Foundation, founded by William Morris, one of the largest financiers of the British fascist movement.

Just to be clear about the ideological commitments of the author and his financiers. I would suggest taking this article with a lot of skepticism.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

dandelion

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF