Which is true, there are parts I like about being a man, and there are parts I dislike about being a man.

...and these days there is probably some specialized label to describe that that isn't merely "man" because that would be too easy.

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!

just constant quarrels between instances, defederations and crap like that

Sounds like you picked the wrong instance. The one I use doesn't defederate, from anyone. So when some drama about "should we defederate from some server because they are a big corp/because they are right wing/because they are tankies/because they allow loli/whatever, I basically get to watch and laugh knowing it's not going to effect me.

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.

It’s almost like people ignore men’s issues and scapegoat them at every opportunity for the sake of women.

Men will never ever get the benefit of the doubt, but when we try to demand it we are just crybabies.

Welcome to society. Frankly, it's malagency (mis-assignment of agency, specifically in a fashion that often makes men responsible for things that happen to them even when they really aren't and often absolves women of that responsibility when they really should have it) all the way down.

Malagency as a lens predicts reality better than a lot of other gender focused lenses. "What would happen if women are believed to be less responsible for what happens than they really are and men are believed to be more responsible for what happens than they really are?" tends to map to reality better than "What would happen if everything in society were created by men to benefit men at the expense of women and to oppress women?" Especially once you stop looking narrowly at the top few percent of men, where the two lenses give similar results.

and the cops saw a man fighting a woman and shot the man by default.

Something like 95% of people shot by police are men. This of course is not discriminatory on the grounds that men are evil, violent savages unlike every other group that are disproportionately shot by police who are innocent victims of oppression.

"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.

All the more reason to angle for approval voting instead. It's much easier to explain to folks - you just pick everyone you're OK with winning, and whoever gets the most votes wins. No spoiler effect since there's nothing to spoil, dead simple to explain to folks, no moving votes around or instant runoffs or any of that, fully inclusive of third parties and already supported by the voting machines you already have.

You only want Trump, just pick Trump. You want anyone outside the main parties, check every box except Harris and Trump. You want anyone but Trump, check every box but Trump. You just don't want candidate in Russia's pocket, check every box except Trump and Stein. Etc, etc.

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.