We've been hearing this for years. On the Drupal site, it says it's a trial and makes you register to download it. Last time I downloaded the Windows package, it gave a Drupal white screen of death. I'm not planning on registering again to try it again. Nor do I want to use AI to install and manage my CMS.
That trial form is if you want a desktop installer from the Drupal Association. You can still install Drupal CMS directly with no form by clicking the "Download the Composer package instead" button next to that.
Drupal is now a very different animal than it was in the Drupal 7 heyday. It's confusing for folks used to WordPress and similar as you're not gonna be uploading it to a regular old shared hosting provider. There's no way you're using modern Drupal without SSH access and using command line to install and update. And thoroughly learning how the Drupal bits all work together.
Drupal CMS is what a lot of people suggest for new folks, but it isn't explained what it is on the Drupal website. It's apparently a set of pre-configured extensions, templates, AI, and settings. Drupal has a version on their site to download but it says it's a "trial" and requires registration to get it, further increasing friction: https://new.drupal.org/drupal-cms/trial#:~:text=start%20your...
Once you do get it, it may or may not work. When I last tried the Windows version, it didn't work and just gave the old Drupal white screen of death in the browser.
When I've seen discussions in the Drupal sub-reddit, most of the recommendations on how to do something seem to be some version of 'have Claude do it for you'. And the Drupal homepage is very AI forward and mentions AI 9 times.
Drupal's largest install base was back in the Drupal 7 days, which was the last major version that supported upgrading in place from the previous versions. Major compatibility changes started with 8 and continued. About 1/2 the sites that used to run Drupal 7 migrated to WordPress rather than upgrade. Today, there are about the same number of sites running Drupal 7 as the current Drupal 11, which speaks volumes.
As someone that still uses a paid, extended-support version of Drupal 7 and is likely switching my big legacy site to Backdrop CMS (actively maintained Drupal 7 fork) and my other two sites to another CMS, it doesn't seem like there's a place for folks like me in the current world of Drupal.
> which was the last major version that supported upgrading in place from the previous versions
This isn't correct. Yes it was true from Drupal 7 to 8, but one of the primary goals of that change was so that every major version after could have seamless in-place upgrades - which they have. Yes there's deprecated code etc. that you might run into in contrib. or custom modules, but the site upgrades themselves are easier than ever.
I'm aware that the modern Drupal supports in-place upgrades for the most part, though white screen of death reports are still pretty common. My point was that there was a split from classic Drupal to modern 'you have to use the command line and should know how to code' Drupal in terms of upgrades from the 7 to 8 split-off.
From all my reading in the Drupal subreddit, modern Drupal isn't especially useful for real world scenarios without a bunch of contributed modules and stuff... hence Drupal CMS. Additionally, folks were recommending not using Drupal 11 until it had been out for well more than a year due to the sad state of contributed module upgrades. I'd wager this is due to the much smaller Drupal community than the version 7 highs.
> modern 'you have to use the command line and should know how to code' Drupal
I get needing to have command line skills for a web framework upgrade (doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation to me), but why on earth would an upgrade require writing your own code?
The 'know how to code' part is a difference between classic Drupal and modern Drupal.
Drupal 7 was useful enough on its own and with regularly supported modules that most folks who used it never wrote code. Most smaller folks who used it just dropped the files on a shared web host via FTP or similar and ran with it.
Modern Drupal is more geared towards coders rather than smaller folks. And the modules suffer from slower updates with the smaller community around Drupal than there used to be. So you'll likely have to use your own custom coded modules or have to code the updates for the existing ones when you upgrade Drupal over time.
I stopped using Twitter after they made it so the only way to avoid all of that was to individually block every single account. I spent a couple weeks clicking that I wasn't interested before it was obvious that you'd see Musk's rantings until you blocked him.
iOS does not allow third party browser engines. Every browser you download from the iOS App Store is using 'Safari Lite' under the hood. It's ostensibly for security, but it's more about control.
I guess that might have something to do with the fact that Chrome is vastly more popular than Safari, and also available on many more operating systems.
No, it's definitely about control. Allowing an arbitrary browser means allowing access to platform stuff from portable (gasp!) APIs. And Apple doesn't want that. They want an iOS app to be the primary face of everything important, and the other stuff to be an expensive port.
And the problem isn't abstract. Safari lacks a ton of very useful API implementations. Like, try programming a QMK keyboard on an iPhone: it's literally the only platform in the whole world unable to run the Via web app.
The Tor statement doesn't mention the actual donation or party. Daniel Berntsson the co-owner of Mullvad, donated approximately US$500,000 to the far-right Örebro Party in Sweden. It's an ethno-nationalist party that is pushing for "remigration". From Wikipedia: "Remigration is a far-right concept referring to the ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including native-born citizens, to their place of racial ancestry."
Nope, the Swedish version of AfD is a lot more successful and is already well integrated into the political system (it’s the 3rd largest party in the parliament ).
"One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge — that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism."
Maybe the co-founder of Mullvad sees the potential profit in the increasing popularity of the party because it would make Mullvad increasingly a necessity.
Every single country on earth participates in remigration, it is not ethnic cleansing by any stretch, given the amount of white people being deported from the US, Europe and other places all the time.
Europe has this absurdist political compass that calls any anti-immigration party "far-right", even when their official party platform is center-left or far-left in every single other respect (like Örebro's current platform of substantial expansions of social welfare program funding). Same is true in France, where you have a party with far-left socialist economics and anti-immigration sentiment that is bucketed as "far-right".
I'm confused. Can you point me to the specific policy of this party, or other mainstream "far-right" parties who have a remigration policy that specifically excludes the deportation of white people who were not born there?
ICE has deported thousands of white people under the current administration, for instance. Their removal operations are indiscriminate, not racial. Several white people (some from Canada, some from the UK, some from Ireland) have made headline news after getting picked up by ICE ERO.
You're confused that I accurately described the origins and meaning of the term "remigration"? It is not merely closing borders and deporting immigrants without legal permission to be there. Calling for remigration absolutely is calling for ethnic cleansing. They're not shy about it, except when trying to convince non-racists that it's actually completely reasonable, and will only happen to criminals, the "worst of the worst", and those who haven't assimilated.
The rest is a large pile of missing the point, and bringing up things I did not say.
I did not say any one was doing it. I said people were calling for it.
For the leaders of the Örebro Party in particular, Wikipedia suffices:
> In a podcast segment about second generation immigrants involved in organised crime Allard stated "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish. They have not been interested in becoming Swedish."
(I am aware that Sweden is _Jus sanguinis_; it is entirely possible that second generation immigrants don't have citizenship; that merely makes it legal. And he does not explicitly make even that limiting argument.)
Note too that ethnicity is narrower than skin color; the lumping together of all European-extraction is a contingent feature of history, and is weaker than you might think. Kicking out non-Swedes would ethnic-cleansing, and would be even if the people being kicked out were white.
Nor does also deporting people for non-ethnic reasons make the rest of a remigration program not ethnic-cleansing. It's not the goal, but it's no big loss to these nationalists, because they're authoritarian race-collectivists willing to cause harm to get those people out.
> Calling for remigration absolutely is calling for ethnic cleansing
Again, I ask for a specific remigration policy that excludes the remigration of white people in the country illegally. This is the prerequisite that would make it a policy based on ethnicity-based deportation.
If it's indiscriminate, it is indiscriminate and therefore not based on ethnic background. Seems to me their explicit policies, both written and in practice, are indiscriminate.
This comment is playing a rhetorical trick, because remigration movements keep calling for the deportation of ethnic minorities who aren't violating any laws or rules. Many even want to specifically revoke the citizenship of ethnic minorities - at which point they'd become "illegals", so in the context of your request it'd still be indiscriminate.
Yes, it should absolutely disqualify the OP.
Even if the RN wasn't called explicitly as I cannot find any French far-right labelled party with a socialist economics. None.
The main one is RN, François Asselineau is maybe the more "lefty compatible" far-right candidate, and he is clearly "right" labelled, not a lefty.
You either are just lying or are profoundly miss informed.
The budget they present on 6 of October is absolutely not social or even support a welfare state. The only thing "socialist-like" is retirement at 62yo, only for people starting to work at 20yo.
The vote at the national assembly state that they are right or far-right oriented.
Almost no European countries, and almost no countries in general for that matter, allow people visiting a country, or illegally being in that country, to give birth there and have that child automatically become a citizen.
In Sweden, a child born in Sweden to a visitor or illegal immigrant is NOT automatically a citizen.
You know where else that statement is true? Denmark, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece. Practically the entire world, actually.
All the aforementioned countries REQUIRE legal status of the parents before the child gets citizenship status, even when born there.
So when the administration 'attacks' birthright citizenship, they are proposing to bring the US in line with the majority of the world and the entirety of Europe.
Incredible - that would make me an illegal immigrant because my parents had me while they were here on student visas and we wouldn't have been able to build the lives we had for the past 40+ years! What a compassionate and humane system, how refreshing.
The level of naked ethnosupremacism embedded in European ideals and their constant barking at how the US is actually the most racist country is so very funny to me. If you rebuild the ship of fools plank by plank will it still dash itself against the reef?
Not taking a stand on either side, but your parent is correct. This isn't a European thing - but true in most countries.
And yes, things like race are a primary reason (for good or bad).
And yes, as my Spanish friend keeps pointing out: While the US has a large homicide rate, they can't beat the Europeans when it comes to pogroms, mass killings, etc every so many decades. Europe will be, well, Europe.
It wasn't "legal status". It was "subject to laws of the country" (i.e, excluding diplomats).
If the very constitution of the country classifies tourists as "not subject to the law of the US", that's some The Purge level popcorn. All visitors and illegal aliens would have had diplomatic immunity.
The US can amend the constitution. It has not. SCOTUS has no legal right to do it unilaterally.
Well sure but have you considered that Der Stürmer's list of Jewish criminals shows a very disturbing pattern of behaviour by a certain ethnic group? Much to ponder.
> It's a shame that refusing to consort with fascists is conflated with "being political".
It's because they are a political party, and he was donating to it. There's no better definition of being punished for a political opinion than being punished to donating to a legitimate party.
And their not "fascists", it's a Swedish nationalist party.
Naming everything you don't like as "fascist" is a quick way to have your opinion dismissed as crazy.
The Swedish party in question seems to hold a position on immigrants that is fascist due to their hostility towards immigrants. While holding a fascist opinion is allowed free speech in a democratic society. Speech that incites violence or hatred is not - generally. And TOR as well as most other civil and decent human beings have every right and perhaps obligation to opine that fascists suck and can f-off.
They are not fascists, they are somewhere between “right-socialists” and left-populists, seemingly very close to Titoism. There is a substantial difference. Fascism calls for fusion of corporations and state and I haven’t seen that from them. They have called for socialization of energy, but that’s common among many left parties.
I am sick to death of the overapplication of the word “fascism”. It doesn’t mean “bad thing”. Distinct words are needed for distinct concepts, otherwise all political discourse ends up like here in America where you have “liberals” who are not actually liberal and “conservatives” who don’t want to conserve anything.
Edit: edited to reflect that they are probably a lot closer to Tito than Hoxha or Juche, after thinking about it.
It’s literally one of the key defining features that separate it from other forms of totalitarianism. That you don’t seem to know this speaks poorly to your understanding of the concept.
It certainly isn’t the only feature and nobody claimed that.
It's one of the multiple still debated feature of fascism. And you said : "They are not fascists [...] Fascism calls for fusion of corporations and state and I haven’t seen that from them."
Both Italian Fascism and National Socialist Germany, the two prima facie examples, exhibited this. Nobody’s debating it except those who want to inappropriately extend the concept to cover other ideologies they don’t like, as a way of associating them with the worst regimes in history for propaganda purposes.
It's not the "calls for fusion of corporations and state" you mentioned above that these people are the most famous for, and what you seem worried about others being associated with; but their ideology and the associated actions. It's no wonder modern forms of a similar ideology draw comparisons to its most famous proponents in recent history.
The association happens by way of that similarity. That's what they're getting called out for.
Opening up a discussion about technical differences in economic policy is completely beside the point, unless you want to distract from the rest of the rotten elephant in the room.
It's not about names, it's about using names as a shorthand for what these people said to motivate and justify their horrific deeds.
They were not the first, or last, but, as you say, among the worst. They serve as an excellent model of what can happen when you put people like that in control of a modern, organized and industrialized state.
And as such, I find it entirely appropriate to invoke their handle as a shorthand for modern ducks quacking a similar tune.
I assume you’re referencing the Holocaust. Unfortunately, genocide and mass killings are not all that uncommon, and there’s been a number of examples coming from wildly different ideologies over the years. (And besides, there’s only one region of the world where civilian mass killings are regularly taking place at the moment, and it’s not the US.)
If you believe historical accounts of the Holodomor, the Soviets perpetuated an even worse genocide. Yet we don’t call the baddies “Stalinists,” because it would be obviously absurd. I’m saying that it’s just as absurd to call them fascists, and the only reason that most people don’t understand this is widespread historical and political illiteracy.
Yes, but this is puts the US in a very different position than Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, which was conducting mass purges of its own citizens, and bringing in citizens of surrounding nations to do the same. The current scale is also much smaller, and the method of murder is more military than industrial.
A closer comparison would be WW1 imperial Germany, allied with the Ottomans, who conducted the Armenian genocide. This fits better in many ways; the WW1 German Empire was also a militaristic, culturally conservative empire that decided to abandon its previous alliances in favor of imperial ambitions. Furthermore, the Armenian genocide was also over control of land, and it was roughly on the same scale.
It’s much more accurate to depict Trump as a Kaiser rather than a Führer, but it loses the emotional resonance. Of course, most people care more about propaganda than understanding reality.
My point is that the term "fascist" here gets used to draw attention to parallels in core ideology, and that this is unsurprising and indeed appropriate.
There will always be differences, and a narrower definition can be useful in a different discussion, but in general, I'd say recognizing the same patterns from the past is the opposite of historical illiteracy and something that we could use more of. Insisting on the finer points _in this context_ comes across as historical pedantry at best, or an inability or unwillingness to recognize the fundamental similarities otherwise.
They just aren’t that similar. One of the reasons that accusations of “fascism” fall flat with so many is that it’s an obvious exaggeration.
It might be pedantry, but in this case it’s appropriate. We’re losing the ability to actually discuss politics above the level of raw tribalism, because every position is always cast as a worst-case extreme. Believe it or not, things could get a lot worse! And they just might!
> things could get a lot worse! And they just might!
Looks like they will. Do you care to bet what sort of party will make them so? You can see them in action across the world and in our past.
> They just aren’t that similar.
That's where we disagree. I say they're similar where it counts the most, at the core. Where did the fascists come from?
There's a combination of xenophobia and populism, this tendency to offer simple solutions to complex problems that tend to involve blaming and getting rid of people that are "different". It usually goes hand in hand with a certain latent or overt brutality, doesn't it, the tendency to not care about the suffering inflicted, about the humanity of others. There's a generous streak of authoritarianism there, wanting to suppress differences, a hostility towards the mechanisms that allow these differences to be expressed and balanced and protected. A disdain for courts that don't rule the right way, for journalists that don't write the right thing, and a soft spot for what we call "alternative facts" these days and for "remigration" - I think the nazis entertained such an idea, too.
I agree that there's an inflationary use of calling out "fascism", but you don't need to look deeply into that Swedish party to see the similarities. From what I read, much more likely than not, somebody like their boss would have been an ardent nazi even before the 1930s, golden party badge and all - and if not, then only because he'd have a competing party for a while.
So yeah, sometimes it's right to call a spade a spade. Another one of the reasons that accusations of “fascism” fall flat is that people just don't want to be associated with _that_, and there are enough differences to talk about to avoid looking in the mirror of the past. You don't need to have arrived at the extremes for people to understand where your heart is, and what is at least the direction you want to go. It's the one that's consistently turned out to be worse.
I just don’t think that pointing to the direction of travel and jumping to the conclusion is politically astute. It’s not an immediate threat and it turns the average person away from political involvement, not towards it.
All the things you pointed out have also been part of other authoritarian movements.
Capital-F Fascism will only come in Western nations after they experience a massive humiliation, not before. This precipitates the broad nationalist anger that’s required. The present course is taking us towards a different kind of totalitarianism, one that doesn’t really have a historical parallel.
Edit: I also think it’s a mistake to equate fascism with some kind of mystical “ultimate evil”. With modern technology, it’s quite possible for us to dream up a future that looks very different than fascism but is somehow even worse. Positioning every political struggle in terms of “fascism” or “anti-fascism” just makes this more likely, because it creates blind spots for new horrors.
Well, I think that pointing to the direction of travel is necessary, because that's where these folks want to go - and if we don't end up there, it's not because they had a change of heart, but because not enough people jumped on their bandwagon.
As I said, I also think that "fascism" is overused as a label, but that it fits in this case and is one of the right labels. Calling the modern revenant by the name of one of its previous forms is not wrong, and should be goddamn possible, at the very least. That was my point. I won't pursue it here anymore, because I agree that it probably does not _work_. It doesn't work because it's wrong, but because it seems like there are simply no words at all that work. This name, that label, new, old, short, long - enough people just don't care, don't see, will not see what they are supporting and voting for. It sucks.
I do agree with you here except on one thing: I don’t think they do want to go towards fascism. The neofeudal “network state” idea that we’re iterating towards is the antithesis of any known state. In abstract it’s another silly ancap experiment that’s bound to fail, but in practice the goal is to splinter any organized resistance to capital into tiny economic zones.
If you want to look at it another way, fascism was domination by national capital using the organs of the state, and it relied on strengthening and centralizing the state. Neofeudalism is domination by transnational capital, with the state reduced to a powerless vestigial remnant.
I think that people do oppose this—see the growing opposition to Flock and data centers, which are small components of the overall picture—but they don’t understand it, and they don’t know what to call it. Personally, I think neofeudalism works well. It even has a Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-feudalism
Edit: I will add nuance here by saying that there is a subset of the right that wants something more akin to an American fascism, mostly a small but vocal group of internet posters, but they are subordinate to both the neofeudalists and the religious nuts and they only get fed scraps from the table. If the AI bubble collapses and drags the economy down with it, the dynamic may flip on its head, depending on how prepared both groups are. Either way, misunderstanding the neofeudalists as fascists allows them to carry out their work in the dark.
The annoyance is that your personal judgement of "bad" is being wrapped up in emotional escalating language which equivocates, "I dont like this policy on immigration" with the history of genocide and total war in europe.
> Fascism calls for fusion of corporations and state
Ironically, most people screaming online and at demonstrations about "fascism" explicitly support this. Outside of socialized health care and university education, it's impossible to detect any traditional left-wing politics among them - deviate an inch from those two things and they instantly revert to a sort of common ignorant libertarianism.
They don't understand that socialized health care and university educations (both of which I support) are easily incorporated into a fascist state, or that Mussolini became prominent and famous as the head of Italian socialism, and saw fascism as a more efficient and powerful way to provide the things that he wanted. They can't be central to your anti-fascism.
But, in fact, all of their anti-fascism is those two things, and additionally somehow unlimited immigration (a capitalist dream.) The only even vaguely left-wing related ways to support this are 1) that communists didn't believe in nation-states, they believed in world communism, and 2) that warmongering imperialists attacked immigrants' countries of origin, so their populations are simply "chickens coming home to roost," aka "blowback."
The first is them pretending to be communists when they're social safety net liberals which falls apart pretty quickly, and the second basically paints immigrants as a punishment as the West deserves. It's no wonder that they default to liberal elite capitalist defenses of immigration - "who will pick our fruit and clean our toilets?" "I love their food, their native dances, their beautiful clothes, and their magical mysterious spirituality," "they're so much more beautiful and interesting than boring white people." At least then immigrants aren't painted as some sort of venereal disease you get from fucking other countries over.
The real reason is that they're following the anti-Wall rhetoric that was cynically aimed at Trump in 2016 by the Democrats (and the Koch brothers) in a massive colossally expensive media campaign, and mistaking that for left-wing politics.
There's a hidden strength in this from the "birthright citizenship" in the US which combined with the extreme pro-immigration stance that the Democrats had to take to differentiate from Trump. A bunch of immigrant children and citizen children of illegal immigrant parents started pretending to be left-wing when they were really mostly single-issue (themselves), and it also worked because they were often low-middle income (safety net, again themselves.) The joy that upper-middle class whites who got worthless liberal arts degrees in word salad experienced when they could attend meetings (and have sex) with this population is mostly responsible for the rise of this dimwitted activism that gets blamed on the left. It was the logical continuation of the orgy of self-love they fell into after congratulating themselves for voting for a black (but absolutely nothing to do with anything that the US did to black people) president twice. A black president of immigrant descent who made "DREAMers" an issue.
There's a similar feature in Europe with refugees, and additionally in both places because there are simply a lot of foreign elites in European universities who love to be seen as the victim rather than the oppressors that they are seen as where they come from. Europe also doesn't have the history with local black people to feel guilty about, so their guilt is mostly around colonies - and these people are from former colonies. Europeans should feel guilty about the gypsies, Holocaust and all, but they don't; they still hate them. Hell, the US left-liberal transferred their guilt about black people and natives to immigrants, who are cast as strivers and saints with big happy families to differentiate them from the abandoned and ghettoized ex-slaves who get to hear about how immigrants built America.
When every power structure in the world started adopting this stupid language, the former left were doomed. Why wouldn't they be? The beliefs of the actual, traditional left had officially been deemed "fascist" and replaced with a cobbled-together set of lifestyle beliefs and xenophilia that bankers had no problem with.
The person I'm refering to (which is not you) clearly has a biased view of what he considers leftism, purely based on skewed USA politics and propaganda without theory. In his wall of text, every single anti-fascist is "left-libtard who doesn't know class war". If you want to talk about the communism and it's link to autoritarism : fine. About the history of fascist leaders stealing socialists ideas to get in power and never implement them : fine. But this is just mashed potatoes of brain matter.
From reading his past posts, I’m pretty sure he and I would fall under the same general “post-left” umbrella. His (and my) problem is not with “the left” or left theory in general, only with the idiots who have appropriated the label and abandoned the key goal of economic justice that sits at the core of left theory. They are the running dogs of the “capitalism” they claim to oppose.
I’m not even a Marxist (my preference lies somewhere near Georgist left-libertarianism), but increasingly I find myself required to dig into Marxist theory to slap down the nonsense coming from what remains of the putative, fully captured-by-propaganda and brainrotted left. Of the heirs of the old left, only doctrinaire MLs seem to have any solid grounding in the actual requirements of governing, while the radical left have all absorbed the New Left (crypto-Trotskyite) approach of “permanent revolution,” although they don’t even realize what this theory is or what it leads to. (In case you weren’t aware, the theory merely reinforces imperialism, leading to domination by transnational capital.)
Lenin was completely right about left deviationism.
>The Swedish party in question seems to hold a position on immigrants that is fascist due to their hostility towards immigrants.
Advocating for controlling borders and opposing immigration is a legitimate political position, whether you agree with it or not. Those who describe everything they disagree with as 'fascism' are not credible people.
Not giving my money so that it flows to an antiimmigrant party, having myself been an immigrant, is rather different from punishing.
Only rich tech bros have this absurd situation where they are "punished" by a political opinion, because only they can meaningfully sway "one person, one vote" with their money.
Are we talking about the political opinion of toilet cleaners who don't have the money to donate, or the energy, or the podcasts to express it? No. That's not an opinion that can be punished, it's just a non-event for many here.
So let me not shed a tear for the political opinions of the Mullvad boss.
Anyone with at least half a brain working understand that crime rate is the consequence of racism and far right influence.
When you struggle to get a job, your schools are overloaded, not well funded, you are forced to ghettoisation, get reminded every day you are not welcome or hated, get considered a criminal by default by ignorants like you, the odds of taking the wrong path becomes quickly much larger.
> Anyone with at least half a brain working understand that crime rate is the consequence of racism and far right influence.
This theory contradicts the fact that immigrant groups with high crime rate also come from countries with high crime rate, where racism is not a plausible postulate.
I donated a kidney to my Dad in 2000. It gave him an extra 23 years with us. He was on very low doses of his anti-rejection meds, partially due to us being a 4 out of 6 HLA type match, so the doctors were hopeful it would last him the rest of his life. It would have lasted far longer if ALS hadn't shown up.
Kidney transplantation is major surgery with decent risks. Donation carries a certain level of risk as well but less than being a recipient. When I donated, the chance of dying was about 1 in 4,000.
Since I donated, my remaining kidney has grown larger and taken over a chunk of the function of my missing kidney. If possible, getting it back would only give me a relatively small benefit compared to the risk of the surgery. First, I'd have a spare again for major injuries meaning I'd be 'allowed' to do things like contact sports and such. It's recommended you don't do things that could result in an impact to your kidney when you don't have a spare. I did violate this once by going skydiving, though.
Second, I'd be able to take anti-inflammatory meds without restrictions. That is an annoying one as when I injured my rotator cuff years ago, the normal recommendation was a month of high-dose anti-inflammatory meds. Since I couldn't do that, I had to do physical therapy and injected steroids which was much more involved and more expensive.
Note that a transplanted kidney can be re-transplanted depending on the health of the recipient when they die. It's not as common but it has been more in recent years. It's often referred to as "regifting".
Not sure which “stem cells” you mean, but I think the recipient’s immune cells colonize the graft. Which means they’d start attacking the original donor(graft versus host disease in reverse).
But you’re probably correct that the immune cells transferred would also be the same problem. But that’s what anti rejection drugs are meant to deal with, aren’t they?
Assuming two people have the same blood type, I believe the compatibility factors are reciprocal between two people, aren’t they? So if you and I are compatible, and of the same level of health, then if we swapped kidneys we should each have about the same risk factors for rejection.
But if as some people were asking, we took a transplanted organ and transplanted again, the compatibilities are not reciprocal any more, and I would not be surprised if you had to assay all three people to figure out the compatibility of the organ. Since it’s my tissue (and perhaps a bit of yours), your T cells, and the recipient’s immune system all having to get along, at least until your immune cells age out, and perhaps longer if the organ is chimeric.
It’s true that some stem cells leave their niche, HSCs can be found in circulation.
To your question about two people swapping kidneys, I’m not so sure. I think that depends on the T cell repertoire, and there’s a lot of variability depending on the life history. So, person A getting a graft from person B might not get the same reaction as person B getting a graft from person A.
You can't get it back there's nothing to attach it to. There's also no point for the risks involved.
Organs can be transplanted twice but it's very rare and it's usually when the first recipient dies shortly after the transplant. It's called (quite obviously) retransplantation if you want to Google it.
reply