You know what, I'd be all behind a subscription mouse so long as it includes periodic hardware upgrades and unlimited warranty replacements no questions asked so long as the subscription is paid.

Admittedly, I'd be trying to figure out the most interesting ways to actively destroy mice to make them rue the day they thought a mouse subscription was a good idea, but that's beside the point. Why no, I can't return the damaged mouse, it's at the bottom of a hole in the woods no human has been down since the civil war. Just like it was none of your business how I found out that the mouse isn't resistant to hydrofluoric acid.

It's the US, we put presidents and Founding Fathers on our bills. Harriet Tubman is neither, so of course we're not putting her on the twenty.

Instead we should compromise with historical precedent and put Obama on the twenty - he's both a president and a black historical figure and he'll piss off the people pissed off by the idea of Tubman on the twenty even more. It's a win all around!

Most of the people charged with anything over Jan 6 were charged with obstructing an official proceeding or similar. Not that it matters, Trump will pardon them just as soon as he's done permanently quashing any legal proceedings against him forever.

Transphobia both currently and for basically the last 50 years at least has always been framed and rooted in the idea of protecting women from predatory "men". Trans men have been a footnote, at most and I doubt one becoming prominent will have the impact you expect.

Short version is that for the most part forum moderation for each game is left up to the devs or whoever they appoint, and users can create user groups and curators without much if any restrictions and they don't particularly give a shit what content the game you want to sell has. The only real exceptions are if it's illegal in the US, which applies to very little (for example no CSAM).

I find it interesting that the federal government threatening a private entity with legal repercussions if it doesn't restrict the speech of it's users isn't such an obvious violation of the first amendment that lawyers aren't climbing over each other to fight this one.

And if you don't see the problem with it, imagine we agree that the federal government should be allowed to restrict what expression can go on on internet platforms content-wise, then imagine Trump and his cronies deciding where the borders lie. They already want to revive the Comstock Act.

Meh, I liked Devos' Title IX policy changes. Even if over half of it was "some guy sued a college over due process and the college lost, let's bake the decision into formal policy" and most of the rest was just firmly establishing who does what and obvious basic fairness things.

That's basically the only thing Devos did that I liked, but it's slightly better than nothing!

The President and Legislature are elected at the federal level. All the various major executive branch figures below that are appointed by the President, and at best require the Senate to approve them. Most aren't as ridiculous in their picks as Trump, but he's a narcissistic megalomaniacal buffoon so he has to ensure to himself that's he's surrounded with people who are well known and popular (hence why he seems to be mostly picking based on media experience rather than anything pertinent, save a couple of Project 2025 authors and Tulsi Gabbard) but that he can see himself as above and will stroke his ego by affirming that.

He appears to be picking people from one of three lists:

• Republicans with media experience (aka people he knows from TV or social media).
• Whoever wrote the relevant section of Project 2025.
• People accused of being Russian assets (mostly just Tulsi Gabbard at this point, but there's a reason she's going to be in charge of foreign intelligence and it's not for our benefit).

It would do more to drain the swamp than anything Trump had ever imagined.

The moment you give people a little finger wrt their requests, one of those people will take the whole hand. The same likely applies to modding.

I suppose that depends on which finger.

"Gamers" are also a group one elects to be a member of, while one is categorized into a race, sex or gender from birth. One is elective, the other is descriptive. No one chooses to be black, or white, or born with male or female genitalia, etc, etc. And a lot of negative views are often along the lines of a rare bad thing being more likely performed by a certain demographic being extrapolated to accuse that demographic of being dangerous or harmful in general (usually an out-group, though under some ideologies it's only acceptable to have this view with a target perceived to be the in-group - as regards blame they essentially reverse the perceived in- and out-group roles).

To turn it around on you though, imagine we picked some other elective group (a hobby, a political or ideological leaning, that sort of thing) that you are likely to look positively upon (and maybe even be a member of) and did the same kind of thing. Let's say...feminists? Would it be acceptable to accuse feminism or feminists of anything negative I can point to any group thereof doing, and if you aren't one of the ones who actually does that then you should not take offense, right? Not feel defensive at all, not question or challenge the assertion at all, right?

since furries have been marked as a target for fascist enemy within rhetoric

Likewise, fascists have been marked as a target for furry enemy within rhetoric, more or less since the first furries wearing Nazi shit showed up at a con.

They're marching in the hopes that someone will attack them in a fashion they cannot reasonably flee from? Or does Ohio have stand your ground and we could knock the part about fleeing off?

Pardon them for what? Unless their possessing firearms wasn't in line with the law, or that "physical altercation" mentioned that questioning apparently went nowhere reemerges as a thing then I don't know what they'd need pardoned for based on the article.

The marching with Nazi shit and spewing whatever hateful bullshit is protected speech, because speech protections in the US are extremely broad.

And that's before getting into whether or not the hypothetical crime is federal (which he could hypothetically pardon) or state (which he can't).

It literally seems like he's just picking a mix of Republicans who are most notorious on social media and people who would make Putin the most happy, so you're not wrong but I don't think it's the actual criterion he's using.

And same for the boys. By saying such dumb things so publicly at such a young age, will they face repercussions from their peers and get inoculated against manoshere-type-misogyny? Or will those beliefs become more ingrained in them and become a core piece of their identity?

Honestly, it will probably do little or nothing. A lot of adolescent boys make a habit of saying whatever they think is shocking and will get a reaction, and kids that age in general try ideas on like they're changing clothes. It's just generally not going to "stick" in the way you think. Once the next shocking thing comes along they'll drop it and probably never think of it again until it's 2040 and they think back about what idiots they were as kids.

Although in the era of social media, they may never get the chance to do so.

I think nowadays they just use Facebook groups to shame men they don't like. Are We Dating the Same Guy is the usual name for them.

...and they did this because they'd agreed not to do superdelegates in 2020 which meant they couldn't use the same levers they'd been wielding in 2016 and before to put a thumb on the scale.

My point was there was lots of space in which to be anti-feminist which doesn't mean "based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men", because defining feminism as the idea than men and women should be equal and thus anti-feminism as the opposite of that is grossly ignoring the difference between dictionary definitions and practice.

It's like saying someone is anti-Christian means that they hate their neighbors and oppose charity and community, and just ignoring all the things done by people placing themselves under that label allegedly in the name of that label.

an anti-feminist movement, which means it’s based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men.

Ever hear a saying to the effect of liking Christianity if it weren't for the the Christians ruining it? As in that the ideals are fine on paper and in theory (love thy neighbor, care for the less fortunate, etc, etc), but in practice the adherents don't really do them as such?

The same applies to feminism - in theory the idea is gender equality, but in practice it often isn't.

I've been around long enough to remember when the standard feminist response to question about what should be done about male victims of abuse or sexual assault done by women was to dismiss them as not existing.

I remember a man opening the first men's DV shelter in Canada (Men's Alternative Safe Housing) and being denied funding because it wasn't a women's shelter until he could no longer keep it afloat from private donations and out of pocket funds so he had to close it and hanged himself in the garage. He left a left a four-page suicide note, condemning the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse and wrote that that he hoped his death would bring more awareness to the issue of male abuse. I wonder what ideology permeates domestic abuse services, again?

I remember big and loud feminist protests at the University of Toronto against checks notes a talk about suicide in men given by a former member of the New York board of the National Organization For Women (who he left when they opposed more equal child custody). If you've ever seen the "Big Red" memes with the red haired angry shouty feminist, they were inspired by a real person who was at this protest shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage with her "fuckface". The group hosting the talk (CAFE) would go on to create another men's shelter which still exists and is to my knowledge the only one in Canada.

Speaking of Jezebel, I remember them writing an article casually joking about the times they've been violent with their male significant others, including in one case hitting her boyfriend because he was worried he might have cancer.

I remember listening to a recording of a radio show on Soundcloud 9 years ago where Mary Koss (prominent sexual assault researcher - nearly all research on campus sexual assault in the US descends from her work, she's the source of that 1-in-4 number that gets thrown around sometimes, and she coined the term "date rape" among others) was asked about male victims of female perpetrators and her response was to ask how that would even happen, how could a woman make a man have sex by force, threat of force or by incapacitating him? (I'd give you an exact quote but SoundCloud isn't playing nice ATM, not sure if it's the site or my adblocker- either way it's close to her phrasing but I'm going from memory, the episode is Male Rape from You Were Here on WERS) and when given an example of a man being drugged into compliance declared that that wasn't rape, it was just "unwanted contact." You see, "rape" needs to be reserved for girls and women because men don't feel violation or shame like real people women do.

Or when KY wanted to pass a law requiring family court judges operate from a rebuttable presumption of equal custody in contested child custody cases - that is that both parents having equal custody is what's best for the child unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise. Out comes the feminist opposition and trying to align any supporters of it with domestic abusers.

And I could keep going like this for a while if I really wanted to, but probably 9/10 readers stopped several paragraphs ago.