Depends on what he means by “ultra-processed”, but you can bet that it’s probably not a reasonable criteria that he’ll be using.

The man isn’t rational, and doesn’t base his conclusions on sound reasoning.

Note the call to lessen regulations around “raw milk, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine”. That’s pretty insane.

And I can almost be certain that what they’ll do is eliminate funding for snap benefits and school lunches going to what they’ll classify as “ultra processed foods”, without adjusting funding to account for what they left behind being significantly more expensive. Some definitions of “ultra-processed” include things like “store bought bread”, “frozen meals”, “soup concentrate”, “yoghurt” and “sausage”.
Call me cynical, but I think if you apply the stricter work requirements for benefits they always want, while reducing the scope of the benefits to cover fewer things, and almost nothing helpful for the people with the severe time restrictions the work requirements can cause you’ll end up seeing people use the benefits far less often, because they give less usable food for the money. Then they’ll use that to justify reducing the size of the program even further.

We expect people making school lunches to make hundreds of meals that finish at the same time, to have the meal be nutritionally complete, tasty, and now also not use frozen or premade ingredients. We give them literally $1 for the ingredients for these meals, and maybe another $2 for operational overhead like labor costs and equipment.
Saying you can’t use canned tomato sauce, peanut butter, pre-packaged bread or ground meats is basically just cutting funding for feeding children under the guise of not paying for a scary sounding classification of food.

Ha! I didn’t see that at first. I love “fuck you so hard that we can and will put a significant dollar value on it being more humiliating”.

The assets were auctioned off to pay his debt to the families of the Sandy Hook shooting.
So effectively they gave money to the families of children killed in a school shooting that he slandered in cruel and vile ways.

Given that the families pretty reasonably dislike him, the added bonus of his creation being used to openly mock him and promote a message they endorse is quality icing on the cake.

His supplement business was under the same business ownership? That’s preposterously stupid and hilarious.

I’ve never understood the people who seem to not get that some people actually don’t mind scanning their stuff and putting it in bags, and insist that that’s the line between what the customer does and the employee. They also used to carry your groceries to the car for you, and you can also get them to pick everything up, bag it and bring it to your car or house. It’s not like the checkout process is the special part that can’t change.

Yeah, they want to save money by having fewer people get more customers checked out faster. I don’t really care since the part I like, getting finished at the store, happens faster.

Sure, never said they weren’t. But comparing a conversation that stopped a month ago to the inquisition justifies pointing out that the conversation ended a while ago, so maybe people aren’t going after someone as they seem to think.

Telling people talking about transphobia that they should spend their time doing something else invites an observation that the conversation had seemingly moved on, and they’re the one bringing it up again.

Okay? That doesn’t obligate you to res a dead thread or act like anyone in it cares as much as you seem to.

Dude, I replied to a comment on an image post. You’re the one who resurrected a month idle conversation to defend transphobia and call recognizing transphobia “the inquisition”.

Why do you give a shit what other people talk about?

going as far as putting lgbt flags on government buildings

In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it’s being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.
So is the notion that it’s in the public discourse only because of big money. I’d argue it’s because there’s been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups. They run for office on culture was issues, so transphobia is a campaign issue.

When was the last time a civil rights issue was pushed by the bourgeoisie?
When was the last time someone said “this is being pushed by the bourgeoisie and big money” about something they approved of?

Putting up a flag at a government building is an extremely low bar to saying something is backed by powerful money.

allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports at the Olympics.

Just going to skip over that bit? Echoing an entirely fabricated claim that someone is trans as an attack on that person is clearly swinging some transphobia around.

Replying to someone and sharing your opinion doesn’t make your opinion not transphobic if it’s, you know: “a transphobic opinion”.
As I said, I read the context. Saying trans rights are part of a bourgeois conspiracy isn’t better when it’s in response to someone saying transphobia is part of a bourgeois conspiracy. It’s a transphobic opinion regardless of why you’re sharing it.

What, pray tell, are my alleged “bad intentions”? Should I ponder what your bad intentions are for jumping in to defend transphobia, unprompted, weeks after the fact?

First, no, I’m not. I said that having read the full context of the comment.

Second, what context do you think would make what they said not transphobic? I don’t think there is one, so even if taken out of context, which it wasn’t, it would be as I said.

Couple things: a statement relating to unspecified testing about one failed test to Russian state media is a pretty far cry from “it kind of holds up”.

I’m glad you avoid manufactured outrage. In this case, the manufactured outrage is from the people falsely claiming a woman is secretly transgender and spreading misinformation, like in the original post you seem to not have a problem with.

You don’t see what accusing someone of being transgender to undermine their win has to do with transgender issues?

Also, “transexual” is not the preferred nomenclature. Transgender is. The former is an older, dated term and is generally best avoided.

swing and a miss. Remember that big part where I talked about how she’s a woman in every possible sense of the word? Read that again.

You’re looking at the hate and then just believing it. Don’t.

Middle of the image you’re responding to, when they refer to “allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports at the Olympics”.

Said Algerian boxer became the center of claims that she was actually trans and competing against women unfairly after she punched another boxer in the face, like boxers do, and the other boxer had to drop out on account of “face all messed up”.

See my previous comment for a breakdown on the validity of that claim, and maybe some understanding of why it’s just a big pile of ignorance and hate.

That context doesn’t actually change the reading of the message as far as I can see.

I’m not sure why the original poster brought economic politics into it, but the best possible reading of “where are these ‘transphobes’ and why do they need ‘rooting out’” is only neutral, and none of it offsets the weird Olympic sports thing.

So … Yay for context, but nothing disingenuous about this post as far as I can see.

Are you referring to the topic of “lgbtq people deserve rights”, or are you referring to “the boxer is a woman”? And when you say “embezzle biological from the sentence”, what do you mean? I think I know, but I would like to be clear.

To be entirely clear: Imane Khelif, the Algerian women’s Olympic boxer, is a cis, born, biological, genetic, assigned female at birth, raised as a woman, anatomical, woman. Trans women are also women, but in this case she is not a trans woman, so the whole thing is just multiple levels of awful and gross.
All controversy surrounding her is factually inaccurate, transphobic and sexist, which is quite the combo.

Lgbtq rights and respect are entirely an ideological issue. I don’t think anyone argued that it wasn’t. Lgbtq rights are human rights, and human rights beliefs are intrinsically ideological.
They’re not being promoted by companies, they’re being leveraged or "exploited* by companies who have realized that human rights are popular.
The objective is to get money from people. What other objective do you think a company would have? Do you think they’re trying to promote being trans for some reason?

Saying that the topic of “caring about transgender and LGBT issues” is promoted by the bourgeois is clearly not intended to indicate they respect those communities concerns.

The “men in women’s sports” thing is just straight up transphobic, sexist misinformation.
It shouldn’t need to be explained, but using “trans” as a label to attack a woman to delegitimize her sporting victory is just a hot mess of issues.