Rendered at 19:23:50 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
I posted this because I thought it both interesting and troubling to see the disconnect between RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice. Like many out there, I connected with some of the underlying messages and values that his campaign put forward. However, the more I learn about him and his past, the more I question not just his methods and expertise, but his truthfulness and genuineness.
I would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
swasheck 2 days ago [-]
For me, so many things he said were not rooted in any form of science or verifiable fact so it was always hard to fully accept and endorse his platform. He has always been a snake oil salesperson trading on his surname.
DonaldPShimoda 2 days ago [-]
Yeah, it blows my mind how many people I encounter who say things like "I thought what So-and-So was saying when they were added to this administration seemed reasonable at face value, so I was shocked to later discover their actions were inconsistent with what they were saying."
Like... that's the whole MO of the administration. None of the "reasonable" positions are genuine; they only exist to entice leniency from the gullible. It's been that way since day 1.
selectodude 2 days ago [-]
I find it to be even worse. They’d say exactly what they were going to do and between the stupidity of voters and the sane-washing from the media, people simply did not believe them! And then you ask them now and they say they didn’t vote for this! Yes, you very literally did. Nothing about what ICE is doing was a secret or a surprise.
ryandrake 2 days ago [-]
How many times did we have to hear "Oh, he's just joking. Of course that's not what he really means!" over the last 10 years?
lesuorac 1 days ago [-]
How would we know he would start a war in Iran?
Maybe because he launched missiles at them last presidency?
unethical_ban 2 days ago [-]
I remember talking with my mom about Trump's immigration policies. They were saying they wanted to round up every undocumented immigrant. They were saying they wanted to go out and find them and do what they've done. I told her I had friends who, despite being citizens, were fearful for themselves being identified as "not white enough". My mom said "They're only going to go after the violent ones". Which is not at all what the campaign or his cabinet said. It was wishful thinking and lies said on the right-wing networks, mixed with problematic stories of the occasional undocumented immigrant who was a repeat offender let out by city processes.
It's a lot of things, but one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits and ideology.
austhrow743 2 days ago [-]
How sure are you that it was wishful thinking and not just your mom avoiding a fight with you?
mindslight 2 days ago [-]
> one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits
Spot on! The people who actually care the most about the issues the regime champions should really be their loudest critics! Instead they seem to be content just "being heard" or "owning the libs"? They'd better be enjoying it while it lasts, because what it's actually doing is burning (arbitraging) all the political capital that these issues had accumulated.
Like despite being pretty ambivalent about it, I don't want to hear a peep about "immigration enforcement" for the next decade - its proponents had their moment, they had their mandate, and they mostly just squandered it on having an anti-Constitutional tantrum.
> ... and ideology
The only ideologies I've found to line up with the regime's actions are 1. self-enrichment, 2. anarcho-capitalism, 3. malevolent foreign influence, 4. religious fundamentalism. 2/3/4 are essentially all just aimed at destroying the government/society for different reasons.
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
For me I am not shocked at the behavior of this administration, and I know many other people had a shift in sentiment toward RFK Jr after he joined the Trump campaign in 2024.
burnte 2 days ago [-]
He testified in court his brainworm had damaged his brain so much he could not reliably work and pay alimony to his ex wife. I don't think it's too much to say people who have had debilitating brainworn infections should not be in charge of public health.
pvaldes 2 days ago [-]
Why blame brainworm? With all the drugs that he has taken as young his brain is guaranteed to be melted cheese by now.
What was the purpose of putting this man at charge if not punishing citizens? All this people are foreign agents.
burnte 2 hours ago [-]
I'm only repeating what he said. I agree, I think the drugs cooked his brain way more than any damage from the brainworm. And you're right, this is just the weaponization of government against the people, the very thing conservatives are supposed to be against.
mindslight 2 days ago [-]
"Today's mission is for you to go to the brain slug planet ... Just walk around not wearing a helmet"
To be fair, it's the same type of self-perpetuating destruction they've been playing with education the whole time.
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
Yes, this might be obvious to folks who know a lot. But many folks have limited time or energy to research health topics deeply, even though they care a great deal about outcomes. For me, I'd hear his campaign messaging and flip between tacit agreement and outright disagreement. But the core of the message -- that we deserve to live in a healthier world and be healthier -- deeply resonated.
stouset 2 days ago [-]
Maybe if you care deeply about outcomes, you should expect to want to have a minimum level of familiarity with that topic before weighing in on it.
Maybe it should be generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.
estearum 2 days ago [-]
A good heuristic for identifying a piece of shit might be: is he allied with an adjudicated rapist and convicted fraudster?
Even more informative in this case: did he sell his endorsement to said rapist/fraudster in exchange for a cabinet position?
You could know literally zero percent of anything about anything in the world and know that this is not a person to be trusted.
Shame on you. Glad you’re opening your eyes now, but it’s your shame to wear now too.
I definitely understand being angry, there is certainly blame to be had, and perhaps there is an argument to be made that supporting RFK Jr was a poor idea even before he joined up with the destructionist grifters. But save your vitriol for the ignorant ones who actually voted for Grump, and most especially for the unrepentant ones who are still cheering as our country's institutions burn.
estearum 1 days ago [-]
There are more ways to be culpable for this administration than just having voted for them.
mindslight 1 days ago [-]
Yeah, so give people room to reflect on their actions rather than encouraging them dig their heels in.
This regime thrives on hate, including the hate for it.
estearum 1 days ago [-]
I am giving them room to reflect on their actions. What do you think "shame" is if not reflection?
mindslight 1 days ago [-]
You do realize there is a large difference between being shamed, and feeling shame, right?
For example if I told you that you should be ashamed of your original comment, does this make you immediately feel shame? Or perhaps does it make it feel like I am personally attacking you?
In fact, I'd say that emphasizing and playing up this difference was a pretty successful campaign tactic for the destructionists. Remember how "deplorables" ended up backfiring so hard? The characterization was entirely technically correct! But yet with the way people work, it ended up doing the exact opposite from what one would naively hope.
(in general, I honestly don't even know if feeling shame from being shamed is a thing any more with the way impersonal online communities work. You can now easily find a different community that will validate whatever you did)
estearum 1 days ago [-]
Common meme, but no, there's actually no evidence that "deplorables" ended up "backfiring so hard."
There's no evidence whatsoever that excusing and forgiving these people's credulity and contempt has done any good whatsoever.
If you fuck up, especially in a way that damages your country so deeply, then you need to feel bad, and you need to suck up the fact that your countrymen will criticize you for it. That's the downside of fucking up.
You don't get to say "okay I'll acknowledge that I fucked up as long as you guys be nice to me for doing so." No. A literal 3rd grader couldn't get away with such a position, and neither should any adult capable of having an opinion on any of this stuff.
mindslight 1 days ago [-]
And yet here you are, responding unashamedly and defiantly for me calling you out!
That's ego for you. It does not like frontal assaults! When someone is in the middle of realizing something for themselves, the last thing you want to do is interrupt them.
I personally saw someone in my family literally use the name "deplorable" for an online account in response to that kerfuffle. Not social media or anything like a public persona, just a web service they wanted to use. Look up sociological labeling theory. One small silver lining to their passing is that I didn't have to witness them spiral into full rabid social media dementia.
And reflexively reaching for this feel-good "no evidence whatsoever" research-assistant-with-a-deadline-quality proclamatory bullshit is one of the ways the Democratic party shares the blame for Grump. That is some "culpability for this administration" that you yourself would seem to share, and that you would say you should reflect on.
Go back and read my original comment. I most certainly would not have written my comment if you had been responding to someone still unapologetically supporting the destructionists! But no, you were taking your anger out on someone who didn't deserve it - exactly like all the maggots who continue to cheer on the performative cruelty.
Or just continue helping to throw gasoline on the corpo-manufactured divide-and-conquer "culture war" pyre! It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?
estearum 23 hours ago [-]
> I personally saw someone in my family literally use the name "deplorable" for an online account in response to that kerfuffle
And? Were they a Clinton voter before that moment? Spoiler: No.
> [this] bullshit is exactly how the Democratic party shares the blame for Trump 2024
No, it's not. Clinton was one of the most disliked people in the entire country going into the election, and Harris came to a close second. Especially in an era of high inflation where incumbents were ousted in pretty much every single election in the entire world. The DNC put up truly horrible candidates and lost.
> It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?
We have just as much evidence that your strategy of coddling the culpable is to blame. Arguing is easy if you just presume (without evidence) that you're correct, and then in fact dismiss the very idea of forming evidence-based beliefs as a problem in and of itself.
mindslight 23 hours ago [-]
You keep missing the core of my point that the "culpability" of the actual person you were attacking is ancillary at best. And as I said: when someone is coming to their own realizations, the last thing you want to do is interrupt them.
mulderc 2 days ago [-]
Everyone agrees and wants a healthier world and for people to be healthier. What RFK has been spouting for as long as I can remember would be the opposite of that. His stance on vaccines has always been clearly crazy and not based on the best available evidence.
idiotsecant 2 days ago [-]
'A politician told me they'd do something good and i vigorously believed them despite the complete lack of evidence they knew wtf they were talking about'
NewJazz 18 hours ago [-]
I never said I believed them? Just that the message resonated.
watwut 2 days ago [-]
> RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice.
His long term goals and opinions are 100% consistent with his current actions and decisions.
> would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
You are getting that and seeing that. Including measles and sick people dying more.
MathMonkeyMan 2 days ago [-]
True, but recognize the spin. Pretend that in the last election you were skeptical of the reigning government medical establishment and you did buy into some of the conspiracies, or at least thought they had some element of truth. Assume you were wrong and that you have good enough presence of mind to now feel duped.
I was always team "RFK Jr clearly bad," but to be honest I didn't put much work into forming that opinion.
doctorpangloss 2 days ago [-]
It's complicated in that the fed gov agencies are so big and the top down bossing-around they are trying to do isn't very effective.
It's better to focus on the simple facts about RFKJR, he cares about celebs and cocktail parties, he doesn't really care about leadership or running a health agency.
morkalork 2 days ago [-]
No matter how genuine and truthful he may or may not be, it was all over the moment they made him eat the McDonald's burger on airforce one for that photo op.
midtake 2 days ago [-]
Humiliation ritual
krapp 2 days ago [-]
Over for whom?
ncr100 2 days ago [-]
Rfk cares a lot about money, during his confirmation hearings the only time he got hot under the collar was when his legal challenges to earn a payout against drug companies was talked about.
Not a public servant.
throw0101a 1 days ago [-]
> I posted this because I thought it both interesting and troubling to see the disconnect between RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice.
What exactly are you expecting someone who doesn't think germ theory is true?
What are the positive things he wanted to accomplish?
Note that I am French so this question is because over here he has always been seen as a conman
2 days ago [-]
nhgiang 2 days ago [-]
Denial is truly sad to see
andyjohnson0 2 days ago [-]
Moral Foundations Theory [1] asserts that socially conservative people particularly value concepts of sanctity and purity - particularly when associated with their own bodies. Hence vaccine refusal, mask refusal and belief in conspiracy theories during the pandemic, etc.
I've long suspected the RFK jr's role is simply to exploit that for his, and his political owner's, benefit. Thata all. The man has no redeeming qualities.
I rather like the MAHA messaging, particularly when they claim that Europe has safer food standards and we have to catch. It disappoints me that RFK Jr might just be either corrupt or a useful idiot to chemical companies.
stouset 2 days ago [-]
Might I suggest you listen to scientists and food safety experts rather than members of a political movement just because you like their messaging?
What you are seeing today is the inevitable and wholly consistent outcome of putting the messaging of MAHA into practice.
talon8635 2 days ago [-]
The person you are responded to is offering a very reasonable line of thought that you yourself might not disagree with (seeing as you didn’t even respond to the point): “EU has better regulations, we should follow those”.
And you’re response, like many others here, is basically “you’re dumb”
That type of bad faith divisiveness will keep us locked into a political tension that continues to allow charlatans to gain power by taking advantage of desperate people.
Most people are good, and most people want the same basic things (good economy, fair pay, peace, good outcomes for their family and children). It would be wonderful for people to focus more on these commonalities and the divisive bullshit media feeds us to keep us angry.
stouset 2 days ago [-]
It’s wonderful that people are generally good and want good things, but it would be better if people gave more deference to the opinions of scientists and experts in the field, rather than politicians and influencers with no relevant experience but who say things that agree with what they already want to believe.
I too want good things, and I am perpetually frustrated by those who actively work against those outcomes. You don’t get a gold star for good intentions when you actively contribute to the opposite.
When GP directly got what they asked for—even when they didn’t realize it—they immediately assumed that the answer must simply be that RFK is corrupt and in the pockets of evil people rather than the more straightforward but uncomfortable answer that would require self reflection.
talon8635 2 days ago [-]
Listen, I agree with you. But brow beating people and making them feel like idiot is how you build an angry group of reactionaries that end up voting Trump or some other corrosive figure into office.
Basically people just ought to be nicer to eachother and understand that, anyone of us or them can be misinformed. Very get people are actively trying to lie or knowingly do the wrong thing. So giving people a little grace and not making them feel like idiots is the way.
But yes, I know that’s can be exhausting as fuck after over a decade of madness. But that’s to only way out, the make the country stop hating eachother.
stouset 2 days ago [-]
Any one of us can be misinformed. But learning that you backed the wrong horse needs to be an opportunity for self-reflection and reassessment rather than “it couldn’t be me that was wrong, the horse must have been corrupt”.
If you voted for a candidate and you realize afterward it was a mistake—regardless of the reason—the path forward is to figure out why your picker was wrong, not to write it off as the fault of the guy you picked.
Being wrong is human. Being wrong and using that to self-correct is noble. Being wrong and digging your heels in or looking for others to blame is shameful.
talon8635 23 hours ago [-]
The holier than though convinces no one. Ever.
You’re right that acknowledging a mistake and correcting is the right and noble path, but my approach of compassion, understanding, and common ground is the only way that leads to that outcome. When instead you brow beat them and call them dumb, they always double down. Then points of difference turn into anger, which turns into hatred.
At some point each of us have to take the personally responsibility to stop getting high off the fumes of our own self righteousness.
stouset 19 hours ago [-]
To be clear, I never called them dumb or brow-beated. I suggested prioritizing the opinions of scientists and field experts over those of politicians with convincing messaging and I noted that what we’re seeing today is the expected outcome of putting cranks like RFK into positions of power.
What I said might have been firm and to the point, but it was certainly gentle.
I’m not sure what exactly you expect someone to say if “Why don’t you try X instead of Y, if you are surprised and disappointed by the outcome of Y?” is considered too hard for someone to handle.
2 days ago [-]
cwillu 2 days ago [-]
You voted for Homer, for exactly the reasons Homer got elected in the episode.
estearum 2 days ago [-]
“I’m so excited for the anti-regulation, anti-healthcare party to ummm… somehow ummm… improve our food supply regulations and healthcare…?”
throawayonthe 2 days ago [-]
it's weird how they say "One TOR exemption that allows the rocket fuel chemical perchlorate to be used in grain bags..." as well as the article they link to https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/11/fda-perchlorate-in-f... focusing on it being a rocket fuel component
this is like that one time people came to my school to talk about vapes, and one of their talking points was "vapes can contain formaldehyde, and formaldehyde is used to preserve dead specimens/tissue samples" ; they did not get my issue with the lack of causal reasoning in that argument :P
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
I agree the framing is poor, but is the chemical actually safe? The article contained convincing claims that it actually does cause harm.
Still, six months after it published its data, the FDA reapproved perchlorate for use in super sacks. Advocates say the agency used flawed science and manipulated the data. The FDA wrote that there was no meaningful increase in perchlorate across all the 250 foods it measured. But critics countered that the problem was not in all the food – the problem was in kids’ cereal.
The FDA largely ignored the cereal findings, and mostly does not consider endocrine system harms when developing regulations, said Tom Neltner, a former scientist with the EDF who is now director of the Unleaded Kids non-profit. He helped lead litigation over perchlorate, which was ultimately dismissed.
penskymaterial 2 days ago [-]
They're worried about the sacks when the coffee beans are being grown in lead- and arsenic-contaminated soil.
desolate_muffin 2 days ago [-]
How many infants do you know that drink coffee?
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
Uh, isn't that guy even more focused on lead, and this was just an additional case he took on?
Or for another example (that's not mentioned in the article), saltpeter and ammonium nitrate can be used in rocket fuel too, but saltpeter has been used in food for thousands of years and ammonium nitrate is one of the most common fertilizers.
penskymaterial 2 days ago [-]
When I lived in California I saw one of those prop 65 cancer warnings on a loaf of bread.
Apparently burning toast can generate trace amounts of acrylamide.
This was enough to convince me a subset of these people are complete lunatics.
maxerickson 2 days ago [-]
Prop 65 gets a lot of shit, but the way it is implemented makes a reasonable amount of sense. If there is evidence that the substance causes harm, it gets listed and companies producing products that contain it have to either notify consumers that it is in there, or they have to demonstrate that the amount of the substance does not cause harm (there's a very low general threshold and some specific thresholds that are higher).
That leads lots of companies to go the low cost route and use the notification safe harbor, but it also creates an incentive to find alternatives and so on. You get cases like you mention, but the alternative to the evidence based approach is to hand wave that it's not harmful.
Arubis 2 days ago [-]
Prop 65 appears to have become a victim of its own incentive structure. When it first landed, companies had to balance whether the potential loss of sales from applying a label was worth lowering enforcement risk, so there was reason to think: is the thing I’m selling actually potentially harmful under this regulation’s definition?
But once the momentum of having these labels on _a lot_ of products gets established, customers start to un-see them, and the sales risk of applying the label drops to negligible. So just slap it on everything, which adds more noise to the signal, which further derisks adding the label, etc.
At this point it probably just needs a hard reset; tear out prop 65 in the process of replacing it with something that learns from these lessons. Maybe make the warning label cost something e.g. mandate that its application include quantitative risk backed by a third party lab test.
upboundspiral 1 days ago [-]
I quite like the idea to include quantitative risk.
I think a useful addendum is that I think the government should be in charge of testing very common combinations (ie the bread example).
It would get expensive real quick for everyone otherwise.
maxerickson 2 days ago [-]
Be interesting to see how the new requirement to name the chemical goes.
CamperBob2 2 days ago [-]
No, it doesn't "make a reasonable amount of sense." When everything causes cancer, nothing does. No useful information is being communicated to the consumer.
Meanwhile, the credibility of the scientific establishment in Joe Sixpack's eyes takes another hit, with all-too-predictable consequences.
Retric 2 days ago [-]
The flaw in that argument is a great number of chemicals do not cause cancer.
nsagent 2 days ago [-]
The sun's radiation causes cancer, yet placing a blanket warning stating the sun causes cancer likely leads many to wholesale avoid the sun, which would be folly (humans need some amount of sunlight).
Similarly, imagine if nutrition facts labels only had to state whether the food could be potentially unhealthy, without any other nuance.
A sensible version of Prop 65 would acknowledge the specific substance, its dosage, and the best known safe dosage. Equipped with that information a consumer can make an informed decision.
toast0 2 days ago [-]
Since the sun is outside the jursdiction of California, it doesn't need a prop 65 warning.
gcanyon 2 days ago [-]
I would love to see prop 65 stickers at the exits to Starbucks(1) warning that going outside exposes you to the sun, a known carcinogen.
1. Starbucks because they are a particular case where acrylamide is a normal byproduct of roasting, and there's basically (as I understand it) no way to have it not be part of the result.
Retric 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
CamperBob2 2 days ago [-]
And the flaw in that argument is that every product is made with many different chemicals, at least one of which almost always seems to be on the Prop-65 list.
Regardless of the strength of the evidence, which is yet another problem with the whole idea.
Retric 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
maxerickson 2 days ago [-]
Seems like a lose lose with joe six pack. He gets to be stupid and lazy and blame you no matter what you do.
You are also begging the question, asserting that the law has no useful impact and is thus useless or even harmful.
CamperBob2 2 days ago [-]
It's not my job to prove that the law has a negative impact. It's on the legislators to show that it has a positive impact before passing it.
That didn't happen. Instead, Proposition 65 was a case of "Oh, no! Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done."
lesuorac 1 days ago [-]
If you want to drink water with 1985 standards go find a used public toilet.
Something did have to be done because water standards were abysmal and its because of all these laws you think they’re not needed.
If there’s one tiny part of the law people have problems with; it’s probably a good law.
What do subpar water standards in California have to do with gratuitous, counterproductive scare warnings on the products we buy in 49 other states?
Couldn't you fix your water standards without subjecting the rest of us to something this stupid?
austhrow743 2 days ago [-]
Legislators didn’t pass it. It was directly voted on by voters.
maxerickson 2 days ago [-]
I'm not saying it is your job to do anything, I'm saying your argument against it is fallacious.
throawayonthe 23 hours ago [-]
this is not what i'm talking about at all, in this case it would be a similar situation if the labels said "contains acrylamide, a papermaking precursor chemical" or something else irrelevant to both the purported danger and use/reason for occurrence
and with the vapes thing, they could just say "formaldehyde is a human carcinogen, can cause permanent adverse effects to nervous system, irritate mucous membranes and aggravate asthma etc" instead of talking about tissue preservation yk?
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
That shouldn't be enough. Have you considered that the authors of the law did not foresee the issues like those you mentioned? And struggled to either find ways or prioritize finding ways to better communicate risks?
Note that the state did eventually modify the communications that the law required.
No, I didn't consider, I muttered "this is fucking stupid" under my breath and tossed the bread in my cart.
When you dilute the meaning of a warning so much, it becomes meaningless.
NewJazz 2 days ago [-]
I agree. The people who made the law that led to that happening might agree. Yet companies might feel the warning is necessary. Where is the lunatic? Just people trying their best acknowledging we can do better.
techjamie 2 days ago [-]
Overexposure to Dihydrogen Monoxide kills around 300,000 people a year, and it's used in a number of culinary and industrial applications. Yet there have been NO serious attempts to regulate it, and it isn't even classed as hazardous waste.
Madmallard 2 days ago [-]
Always comments like this on these kinds of posts. The Plant Slant fans acting condescending while literally not knowing anything about what they're talking about. Need less of this in the world.
flufluflufluffy 2 days ago [-]
Might be sarcasm in this case, regarding how certain molecules might be cherry-pick-regulated vs others. Although it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison to equate drowning with “overexposure” to water.
illusive4080 2 days ago [-]
Explain the term “Plant Slant” please. I don’t follow.
Madmallard 2 days ago [-]
It's a YouTube channel you can lookup. He does these low-hanging fruit-style jabs at other people's tiktoks and other videos about health where they are unfortunately not super knowledgeable. He has tons of fans so it kind of turns into this toxic movement where people just regurgitate things he said (which is like identical to the comment I replied to) all over comment sections on videos.
2 days ago [-]
2 days ago [-]
Madmallard 2 days ago [-]
No matter what you may argue about whether or not these specific chemicals are safe at the contaminant dosage, we do not NEED more poorly studied chemicals present in our environment.
edukite 1 days ago [-]
In UE even cow meat is banned because of how unhealthy it is.
From European point of view even bread sold in USA is Molotov cocktail
GuestFAUniverse 2 days ago [-]
"generally regarded as safe” (Gras)
-- obviously thought out while smoking too much of it.
stackghost 2 days ago [-]
Americans are so bizarrely tolerant of having a food supply chock full of highly-processed, artificial everything.
The answer always seems to be “we don’t like these big companies putting additives in food but we’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas”
estearum 2 days ago [-]
See: Citizens United
cindyllm 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
shevy-java 2 days ago [-]
This is the outcome when you have lobbyists control a government. In this
regard the Trump-administration is by far the most hostile to people.
You still have to wonder why Trump has a 30% support base; that should be
at 0% already but some people can not think on their own (excluding the 5%
who benefit personally from the Trump clique).
jmclnx 2 days ago [-]
>many chemicals, especially hormone disruptors linked to brain damage and reproductive harm in children, are considered dangerous at levels far below 0.5ppb
I guess US people are not damaged, dumbed down enough. Now the Trump admin wants to make sure kids are at high risk for brain damage. At least the cuts to colleges by Trump will not matter once TOR hits "critical mass".
rozal 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
lisplist 2 days ago [-]
My car had a few dents in it and leaked oil so I decided the best course of action was to set it on fire.
3eb7988a1663 2 days ago [-]
FDA was not perfect, so might as well burn the entire thing down?
Surely there is a middle ground, where processes can be improved.
rozal 1 days ago [-]
Who is burning it to the ground? Did you not read articles about removing food dyes earlier this year? That sounds like an improvement.
Meanwhile, this article is fear-based. “FDA may add..” means they didn’t.
mathisfun123 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
devin 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
rozal 1 days ago [-]
It warms my heart that my post triggered this kind of reaction from you.
penskymaterial 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
devin 2 days ago [-]
Take a look at the parent's comment history. You think I'm the problem?
penskymaterial 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
devin 2 days ago [-]
Have a nice day!
ck2 2 days ago [-]
it's really hard to pick the first few impeachments based on urgency in preventing further death and destruction
Hegseth, Kennedy and Vought I think would be most productive focus
But if Dems don't get Senate country is doomed anyway so pointless
6510 2 days ago [-]
Someone once told me that if you have an ingredient that may have 0.3% toxins and you bought a cheap badge with 0.4% and a quality badge with 0.25% it is awfully tempting to mix them as close to 0.29% as possible. You might even convince the quality supplier to aim for 0.2% so that you can use the almost worthless 0.5% It isn't unthinkable that some would use the food supply to somewhat legally dispose of 100% toxic materials. Properly mixing is really hard and you cant really trust people who would do such a thing to mix in the poisons "properly".
Havoc 2 days ago [-]
The self regulation worked great for Boeing so why not
tancop 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
josefritzishere 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
ssl-3 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
gustavus 2 days ago [-]
Wait till they get wind of that toxic dihydrogen monoxide. It is in almost every beverage in the US and is the same chemical used in pesticides, fertilizer, its even used in many toxic waste industrial processes.
Beyond that there are numerous repeated and scientifically proven to cause permanent brain damage or even death in sufficient concentrations. How long will Washington insiders profit while our nation continues to sicken.
swasheck 2 days ago [-]
This comment seems detached from the basis of the article. If anything you’re describing the standard MAHA RFKj acolyte
2 days ago [-]
londons_explore 2 days ago [-]
If a chemical coating on a 2000 lbs grain bag was enough to harm children who ate grain stored in the bags, then think about the impact on the person in the coating factory who probably receives a dose 10^9 x bigger without PPE, and probably 10^6 bigger with PPE, because very little PPE keeps out more than 99.9% of whats outside.
Something about the story doesn't add up. Either people are dying every day in the coating factory (unlikely), or the coating, whilst measurable, isn't as dangerous as the article implies.
midtake 2 days ago [-]
Inhalation is different from ingestion, for one. I can handle gallons of liquid hydrogen cyanide, but it takes much less than that to kill me if it contaminates my food. The articles say perchlorates are harmful at 0.5 ppb. That's pretty demanding, so to me the article makes sense.
KaiserPro 2 days ago [-]
Or, perhaps the exposure is controlled because there is a legal obligation to not let your employees ingest perchlorate
Perhaps. Or perhaps the factory knows that there's no effective oversight and that reports of bad working conditions can be smoothed over with a political donation or a negligible fine, and starts deprioritizing safety, monitoring, and maintenance of existing safety systems.
kozd 2 days ago [-]
> probably 10^6 bigger with PPE
How did you arrive at six orders of magnitude? Are the workers ingesting the bags?
zug_zug 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
komali2 2 days ago [-]
On that note, many of the American readers here are probably eligible for the Taiwan Gold Card Visa. Especially anyone in SF, basically having a Github and an American software engineering salary practically guarantees you to get it.
It's an unrestricted work visa: 3 years, unlimited in/out, no requirement to get a job in Taiwan (or work at all), total allowance for remote work for foreign companies, lower tax rate, and eligibility for the state-subsidized national health insurance program after 6 months in the country. How'd you like to pay 10$ for an xray after being scanned and seen by a doctor within 30 minutes of walking into an ER? That's our life here!
We have lots of tech folks from all over the world here and regularly have co-working meetups, hackathons, fireside chats, and talks. Also our food doesn't have toxic chemicals in it :)
Fascinating. Is this mostly remote software engineers? Hardware folks with manufacturing out there?
The time zone would make it tough for non global teams I imagine. Interested to hear what types of companies make it work.
komali2 2 days ago [-]
Most of my tech friends are remote software engineers. Mostly French and American, and most either working full time for some SF tech company (usually Taiwan hours), or freelancing.
Every once in a while I meet someone that's keeping to USA time zone work hours but they usually don't last. I've been working USA / UK gigs for 5 years now keeping to my time zone without issue. Sometimes gotta catch an 11pm meeting, not bad. For software engineering it kinda doesn't matter what time of the day works get done? Companies: for me it's all been startups, two YC ones and a couple random other ones.
There are some hardware folks I know out here and they are both way busier and way more successful than us hordes of coworking software engineers that chill at cafes all day. Also I know a couple that gave up their tech jobs and started a hotsauce company, they're doing pretty well. People get up to all sorts of stuff out her. I even made a restaurant play. Not recommended!
I would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
Like... that's the whole MO of the administration. None of the "reasonable" positions are genuine; they only exist to entice leniency from the gullible. It's been that way since day 1.
Maybe because he launched missiles at them last presidency?
It's a lot of things, but one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits and ideology.
Spot on! The people who actually care the most about the issues the regime champions should really be their loudest critics! Instead they seem to be content just "being heard" or "owning the libs"? They'd better be enjoying it while it lasts, because what it's actually doing is burning (arbitraging) all the political capital that these issues had accumulated.
Like despite being pretty ambivalent about it, I don't want to hear a peep about "immigration enforcement" for the next decade - its proponents had their moment, they had their mandate, and they mostly just squandered it on having an anti-Constitutional tantrum.
> ... and ideology
The only ideologies I've found to line up with the regime's actions are 1. self-enrichment, 2. anarcho-capitalism, 3. malevolent foreign influence, 4. religious fundamentalism. 2/3/4 are essentially all just aimed at destroying the government/society for different reasons.
What was the purpose of putting this man at charge if not punishing citizens? All this people are foreign agents.
To be fair, it's the same type of self-perpetuating destruction they've been playing with education the whole time.
Maybe it should be generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.
Even more informative in this case: did he sell his endorsement to said rapist/fraudster in exchange for a cabinet position?
You could know literally zero percent of anything about anything in the world and know that this is not a person to be trusted.
Shame on you. Glad you’re opening your eyes now, but it’s your shame to wear now too.
I definitely understand being angry, there is certainly blame to be had, and perhaps there is an argument to be made that supporting RFK Jr was a poor idea even before he joined up with the destructionist grifters. But save your vitriol for the ignorant ones who actually voted for Grump, and most especially for the unrepentant ones who are still cheering as our country's institutions burn.
This regime thrives on hate, including the hate for it.
For example if I told you that you should be ashamed of your original comment, does this make you immediately feel shame? Or perhaps does it make it feel like I am personally attacking you?
In fact, I'd say that emphasizing and playing up this difference was a pretty successful campaign tactic for the destructionists. Remember how "deplorables" ended up backfiring so hard? The characterization was entirely technically correct! But yet with the way people work, it ended up doing the exact opposite from what one would naively hope.
(in general, I honestly don't even know if feeling shame from being shamed is a thing any more with the way impersonal online communities work. You can now easily find a different community that will validate whatever you did)
There's no evidence whatsoever that excusing and forgiving these people's credulity and contempt has done any good whatsoever.
If you fuck up, especially in a way that damages your country so deeply, then you need to feel bad, and you need to suck up the fact that your countrymen will criticize you for it. That's the downside of fucking up.
You don't get to say "okay I'll acknowledge that I fucked up as long as you guys be nice to me for doing so." No. A literal 3rd grader couldn't get away with such a position, and neither should any adult capable of having an opinion on any of this stuff.
That's ego for you. It does not like frontal assaults! When someone is in the middle of realizing something for themselves, the last thing you want to do is interrupt them.
I personally saw someone in my family literally use the name "deplorable" for an online account in response to that kerfuffle. Not social media or anything like a public persona, just a web service they wanted to use. Look up sociological labeling theory. One small silver lining to their passing is that I didn't have to witness them spiral into full rabid social media dementia.
And reflexively reaching for this feel-good "no evidence whatsoever" research-assistant-with-a-deadline-quality proclamatory bullshit is one of the ways the Democratic party shares the blame for Grump. That is some "culpability for this administration" that you yourself would seem to share, and that you would say you should reflect on.
Go back and read my original comment. I most certainly would not have written my comment if you had been responding to someone still unapologetically supporting the destructionists! But no, you were taking your anger out on someone who didn't deserve it - exactly like all the maggots who continue to cheer on the performative cruelty.
Or just continue helping to throw gasoline on the corpo-manufactured divide-and-conquer "culture war" pyre! It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?
And? Were they a Clinton voter before that moment? Spoiler: No.
> [this] bullshit is exactly how the Democratic party shares the blame for Trump 2024
No, it's not. Clinton was one of the most disliked people in the entire country going into the election, and Harris came to a close second. Especially in an era of high inflation where incumbents were ousted in pretty much every single election in the entire world. The DNC put up truly horrible candidates and lost.
> It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?
We have just as much evidence that your strategy of coddling the culpable is to blame. Arguing is easy if you just presume (without evidence) that you're correct, and then in fact dismiss the very idea of forming evidence-based beliefs as a problem in and of itself.
His long term goals and opinions are 100% consistent with his current actions and decisions.
> would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
You are getting that and seeing that. Including measles and sick people dying more.
I was always team "RFK Jr clearly bad," but to be honest I didn't put much work into forming that opinion.
It's better to focus on the simple facts about RFKJR, he cares about celebs and cocktail parties, he doesn't really care about leadership or running a health agency.
Not a public servant.
What exactly are you expecting someone who doesn't think germ theory is true?
* https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/06/14/nx...
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2025/1...
Note that I am French so this question is because over here he has always been seen as a conman
I've long suspected the RFK jr's role is simply to exploit that for his, and his political owner's, benefit. Thata all. The man has no redeeming qualities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
What you are seeing today is the inevitable and wholly consistent outcome of putting the messaging of MAHA into practice.
And you’re response, like many others here, is basically “you’re dumb”
That type of bad faith divisiveness will keep us locked into a political tension that continues to allow charlatans to gain power by taking advantage of desperate people.
Most people are good, and most people want the same basic things (good economy, fair pay, peace, good outcomes for their family and children). It would be wonderful for people to focus more on these commonalities and the divisive bullshit media feeds us to keep us angry.
I too want good things, and I am perpetually frustrated by those who actively work against those outcomes. You don’t get a gold star for good intentions when you actively contribute to the opposite.
When GP directly got what they asked for—even when they didn’t realize it—they immediately assumed that the answer must simply be that RFK is corrupt and in the pockets of evil people rather than the more straightforward but uncomfortable answer that would require self reflection.
Basically people just ought to be nicer to eachother and understand that, anyone of us or them can be misinformed. Very get people are actively trying to lie or knowingly do the wrong thing. So giving people a little grace and not making them feel like idiots is the way.
But yes, I know that’s can be exhausting as fuck after over a decade of madness. But that’s to only way out, the make the country stop hating eachother.
If you voted for a candidate and you realize afterward it was a mistake—regardless of the reason—the path forward is to figure out why your picker was wrong, not to write it off as the fault of the guy you picked.
Being wrong is human. Being wrong and using that to self-correct is noble. Being wrong and digging your heels in or looking for others to blame is shameful.
You’re right that acknowledging a mistake and correcting is the right and noble path, but my approach of compassion, understanding, and common ground is the only way that leads to that outcome. When instead you brow beat them and call them dumb, they always double down. Then points of difference turn into anger, which turns into hatred.
At some point each of us have to take the personally responsibility to stop getting high off the fumes of our own self righteousness.
What I said might have been firm and to the point, but it was certainly gentle.
I’m not sure what exactly you expect someone to say if “Why don’t you try X instead of Y, if you are surprised and disappointed by the outcome of Y?” is considered too hard for someone to handle.
i guess it sounds scary? but it almost implies rocket fuel is somehow involved in grain transport lol. the real reason for its use i guess is to control static electricity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate#:~:text=control-,s...
this is like that one time people came to my school to talk about vapes, and one of their talking points was "vapes can contain formaldehyde, and formaldehyde is used to preserve dead specimens/tissue samples" ; they did not get my issue with the lack of causal reasoning in that argument :P
Still, six months after it published its data, the FDA reapproved perchlorate for use in super sacks. Advocates say the agency used flawed science and manipulated the data. The FDA wrote that there was no meaningful increase in perchlorate across all the 250 foods it measured. But critics countered that the problem was not in all the food – the problem was in kids’ cereal.
The FDA largely ignored the cereal findings, and mostly does not consider endocrine system harms when developing regulations, said Tom Neltner, a former scientist with the EDF who is now director of the Unleaded Kids non-profit. He helped lead litigation over perchlorate, which was ultimately dismissed.
https://unleadedkids.org/about-us/
Apparently burning toast can generate trace amounts of acrylamide.
This was enough to convince me a subset of these people are complete lunatics.
That leads lots of companies to go the low cost route and use the notification safe harbor, but it also creates an incentive to find alternatives and so on. You get cases like you mention, but the alternative to the evidence based approach is to hand wave that it's not harmful.
But once the momentum of having these labels on _a lot_ of products gets established, customers start to un-see them, and the sales risk of applying the label drops to negligible. So just slap it on everything, which adds more noise to the signal, which further derisks adding the label, etc.
At this point it probably just needs a hard reset; tear out prop 65 in the process of replacing it with something that learns from these lessons. Maybe make the warning label cost something e.g. mandate that its application include quantitative risk backed by a third party lab test.
I think a useful addendum is that I think the government should be in charge of testing very common combinations (ie the bread example).
It would get expensive real quick for everyone otherwise.
Meanwhile, the credibility of the scientific establishment in Joe Sixpack's eyes takes another hit, with all-too-predictable consequences.
Similarly, imagine if nutrition facts labels only had to state whether the food could be potentially unhealthy, without any other nuance.
A sensible version of Prop 65 would acknowledge the specific substance, its dosage, and the best known safe dosage. Equipped with that information a consumer can make an informed decision.
1. Starbucks because they are a particular case where acrylamide is a normal byproduct of roasting, and there's basically (as I understand it) no way to have it not be part of the result.
Regardless of the strength of the evidence, which is yet another problem with the whole idea.
You are also begging the question, asserting that the law has no useful impact and is thus useless or even harmful.
That didn't happen. Instead, Proposition 65 was a case of "Oh, no! Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done."
Something did have to be done because water standards were abysmal and its because of all these laws you think they’re not needed.
If there’s one tiny part of the law people have problems with; it’s probably a good law.
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65
Couldn't you fix your water standards without subjecting the rest of us to something this stupid?
and with the vapes thing, they could just say "formaldehyde is a human carcinogen, can cause permanent adverse effects to nervous system, irritate mucous membranes and aggravate asthma etc" instead of talking about tissue preservation yk?
Note that the state did eventually modify the communications that the law required.
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/proposition-65-clea...
No, I didn't consider, I muttered "this is fucking stupid" under my breath and tossed the bread in my cart.
When you dilute the meaning of a warning so much, it becomes meaningless.
From European point of view even bread sold in USA is Molotov cocktail
The answer always seems to be “we don’t like these big companies putting additives in food but we’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas”
I guess US people are not damaged, dumbed down enough. Now the Trump admin wants to make sure kids are at high risk for brain damage. At least the cuts to colleges by Trump will not matter once TOR hits "critical mass".
Surely there is a middle ground, where processes can be improved.
Meanwhile, this article is fear-based. “FDA may add..” means they didn’t.
so many clowns to chose from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_cabinet_of_Donald_Trump
Hegseth, Kennedy and Vought I think would be most productive focus
But if Dems don't get Senate country is doomed anyway so pointless
Beyond that there are numerous repeated and scientifically proven to cause permanent brain damage or even death in sufficient concentrations. How long will Washington insiders profit while our nation continues to sicken.
Something about the story doesn't add up. Either people are dying every day in the coating factory (unlikely), or the coating, whilst measurable, isn't as dangerous as the article implies.
https://www.fishersci.co.uk/store/msds?partNumber=10031501&p...
How did you arrive at six orders of magnitude? Are the workers ingesting the bags?
It's an unrestricted work visa: 3 years, unlimited in/out, no requirement to get a job in Taiwan (or work at all), total allowance for remote work for foreign companies, lower tax rate, and eligibility for the state-subsidized national health insurance program after 6 months in the country. How'd you like to pay 10$ for an xray after being scanned and seen by a doctor within 30 minutes of walking into an ER? That's our life here!
We have lots of tech folks from all over the world here and regularly have co-working meetups, hackathons, fireside chats, and talks. Also our food doesn't have toxic chemicals in it :)
You can learn more here: https://goldcard.nat.gov.tw/en/
p.s. YC startup school is coming here this year https://events.ycombinator.com/startup-school-taipei
The time zone would make it tough for non global teams I imagine. Interested to hear what types of companies make it work.
Every once in a while I meet someone that's keeping to USA time zone work hours but they usually don't last. I've been working USA / UK gigs for 5 years now keeping to my time zone without issue. Sometimes gotta catch an 11pm meeting, not bad. For software engineering it kinda doesn't matter what time of the day works get done? Companies: for me it's all been startups, two YC ones and a couple random other ones.
There are some hardware folks I know out here and they are both way busier and way more successful than us hordes of coworking software engineers that chill at cafes all day. Also I know a couple that gave up their tech jobs and started a hotsauce company, they're doing pretty well. People get up to all sorts of stuff out her. I even made a restaurant play. Not recommended!