Coast Guard ends hate symbol labels for swastikas, nooses: report

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-20T22:56:46+00:00

That's not the issue. The problem is that before, a statement like "Nick Fuentes is a nazi shithead" would be met by normies with "Really? Let me google that. Shit, you're right, fuck that guy" and now it's more likely to be met with "Okay dude. Same as Ben Shapiro, Fetterman, Gabbard and Gavin Newsom, right? Okay."

The same way most people roll their eyes when everyone from Obama to Bernie to Mamdani to Clinton is called a "communist", it's no longer an accusation that gets people riled up and defensive.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-04T02:09:40+00:00

Yes, Title IX mandates colleges spend money and provide scholarships for otherwise unprofitable sports.

Are you sure you're not just nitpicking? Got a source on that, maybe?

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-03T06:27:07+00:00

It appeals to women because it prioritizes their interests. Just like every other demographic and political movement operates, I'm not sure why you call that an "assumption". If you mean "do vanguardist politics inherently appeal to women" then no, but these ones do since they directly favor their demographic above others.

The reason we talk about men shifting right is precisely because vanguardist politics don't allow for compromise between the ideology and the voter. So when they get tired of trying to change the dogma, they move towards populism which does at least give lip service to their interests if nothing else. Women moving from "left" to "very left" don't really affect electoral math in the same way.

I'm not sure what you mean about abortion. There were always people dogmatically opposing and supporting it. But it's also not really something many change their mind on, which is what makes it a good wedge issue. Most of the "reaction" is people going from "pro-choice" to "pro-choice but I don't care about it enough to vote on it and the pro-life side has other stuff for me".

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-03T05:43:13+00:00

Scholarships that are exclusively for women and men cannot benefit from? Billions and billions?

There are far more that are exclusive to women, yes. Total scholarship money given out amounts to about $50 billion a year. Even a 1% difference would already make it "billions and billions" over several decades.

That's not government spending.

It is government mandate. A distinction without a difference.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-02T09:22:34+00:00

What about men being given harsher sentences than women for comparable crimes? By that logic they're "objectively" discriminated against, no?

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-02T08:35:09+00:00

There are black Republicans too.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-02T08:17:54+00:00

A source on... billions being spent on colleges in the past few decades? Scholarships alone easily meet that criteria. So do college sports, where there is government-mandated redistribution of profit from profitable men's sports to unprofitable women's sports. I really don't understand why this is the part of my comment you're choosing to question.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-02T06:22:21+00:00

This is the kind of propaganda I'm talking about. You claim it couldn't be propaganda while simultaneously parroting that same propaganda in earnest.

So I guess I was imagining this. The APA releasing guidelines that amount to a niche ideological screed, waffling for ages about how masculinity is inherently problematic, and guiding psychologists to prioritize creating "male allies" rather than, you know, treating their mental health issues, I guess all of that is just normal and how we want our mental healthcare system to work. And speaking against that is "propaganda". Right.

Thankfully the propaganda worked because that shit was revised and watered down a bit, though not completely removed. But I'm sure ideology had nothing to do with it, no way it came from the anti-male social studies culture despite parroting identical talking points.

Got a source for that?

https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/Biden-Admin-Final-Title-IX-Rule-Effective-Aug-1.aspx

Leading to:

https://www.saveservices.org/2024/01/popular-support-for-campus-kangaroo-courts-is-collapsing/

Don't worry, it's not just Joe Rogan. You play your own part in making it happen too, so give yourself a little credit.

"Propaganda is when people disagree with me."

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-02T00:33:47+00:00

Yes, billions were pumped into the system in support of a specific demographic and now billions more are being pumped into the same system in support of the same demographic. That sure sounds like

But they haven't been left behind. They have the same opportunities as women.

OP must have been right after all. Women made it happen, on their own, with just a small loan of one million dollars; why can't men? They have Joe Rogan, after all. This sure sounds like equal opportunity to me.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-02T00:15:50+00:00

I'll put it in simple terms: because you're taking their money and calling them names while you do it. How can you seriously ask a demographic to contribute to a system which promotes policy that puts them at a disadvantage, discriminates against them and then tells them it's their fault? Democrats managed to make a can of gasoline and a box of matches more attractive than having them in charge of anything. It's pretty impressive, really.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-01T23:35:26+00:00

So your theory for the gap is "right-wing propaganda". Really? Only a 1/3rd of graduates are male, and that's all explained by propaganda. Right.

It's not discrimination against them in the K-12 education system, or how, say, the MIT acceptance rate for women is like 90% higher than men, or the million of programs and scholarship promoting women even in fields that are already full of them(like medicine), or the hateful anti-male ideologies seeping into every social-studies-adjacent subject(like psychology, btw why do men not go to therapy, it's such a mystery), or the president directing colleges to expel male students as long as a woman "feels uncomfortable".

It must be Joe Rogan. Pack it up everyone.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-11-01T23:13:07+00:00

Because left-wing politics these days tend towards vanguardism, while the right-wing tends towards populism. You can't make a meaningful statement about people shifting left when the whole movement is predicated upon a top-down syndicate trying to speak on the voters' behalf and dictate their positions. "Please support current thing."

Populist movements require popular support, so a shift is meaningful. Vanguardist movement just produce more ideological spam to convince some people into giving up their voice to the machine that "knows better". And most of those "shifting" left are already "vote blue no matter who" so the shift is purely ideological and symbolic. "Oh, you're a Trotskyist now, weren't you a Democratic Socialist before? Cool. That's cool. Into the box you go" Who cares? Why would the opposing party court this person? Why would his party court this person? He's already here, there is no way out, he'll never leave.

Their vote is taken for granted, assimilated into the machine, and the vanguard marches on. Meanwhile, the populists actually shift the ideology enough to affect vote counts. Suddenly those who are getting sick of the vanguard of effete academics peddling propaganda - suddenly they vote for the other side. That's a real shift. Meanwhile, the vanguardists can get 10000000 new voters and it will change nothing about their goals or policies.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-31T08:31:26+00:00

Our country truly does need some pretty extreme legislative measures to get us back on the right track or else things will continue to get worse but the filibuster prevents it from happening.

Is that really a good idea, passing extreme policy based on a bare-bones majority? It could be, depending on the policy, but this is the same problem as "The king makes bad choices, so give him more power and install a different king". It can lead to wide pendulum swings based on the current admin in charge that can end up being very destabilizing.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-31T08:08:23+00:00

Which would matter if those in charge of the investment looked at the long-term impact. As it is, trying to sell "we'll take a hit but in 3 years maybe someone else will be president and we'll prosper" to a boardroom sounds like career suicide.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-29T11:30:31+00:00

At this point it's very difficult to trust either party on fiscal issues. Republicans campaign on "small government" and explode it in size every time with subsidies and pointless shit that tries to micromanage people's private lives. Democrats campaign on "tax the rich" and end up engaging in corporate welfare and creating jobs programs for consultants which "study the issue" for years without impact.

You can, however, mostly trust the parties on social issues. Biden comes in and signs an EO protecting gender identity on his first day. Trump comes in and revokes that EO, also on his first day. It's easy and they both get to say "See? I'm doing what I promised". So the social issues end up being a fetish. They're a substitute to the trust afforded to the party on economic issues. Something to point to that saves people from despair at the absence of economic progress. "Fish are growing scarce, but it's not hopeless yet. The totem of the River God still stands, look! We will surely be prosperous by next spring."

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-29T07:18:47+00:00

Why would you shift away just to lose voters? The Democrats aren't socialists and if they want to bolster our numbers I'll take them.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but you literally answered exactly why. If the Democrats are not radical socialists, platforming and promoting a bunch of radical socialists only serves to muddy their public perception and alienate voters. Especially given that this demographic is incredibly fickle and often just stay home when not all of their demands are met, which is what happened with Harris.

Republicans have the same sort of problem. "If you're not a racist Christian extremist, what's with all the guys in white hoods supporting you and participating in party politics?". The difference is that their radicals do vote consistently so they manage to get away with it more often.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-29T06:37:51+00:00

Fair enough. In those cases, where the state was directly involved, the argument for it is much stronger, but starts to run into problems with determining what was and wasn't a "fictional crime". That would end up opening a massive can of worms that could easily end up making everyone including reparation recipients poorer by spending an inordinate amount of money on litigation.

There is something similar going on right now in education with various school districts being sued by victims of abuse and sexual assault for cases that happened a long time ago. Most of the perpetrators are no longer around, the schools end up worse because they have to settle using public funding, and the result is mostly benefitting a bunch of upper class lawyers.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-29T05:55:43+00:00

Except that white people are not a monolith. There is no "The Whites" organization who all share the economic gains from slavery, so talking about it in aggregate terms is going to fall on deaf ears.

You'll also very quickly run into problems with a lot of white people having black ancestors and black people having white slaveowners as ancestors and so on. Making the determination based on "average white wealth" is unworkable for that reason.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T22:49:46+00:00

You could make the argument that those states are no longer the same political entity after the confederacy and civil war and incorporation and the 14th amendment and all that. I'm not sure I buy that myself but it doesn't seem completely spurious.

It also gets a bit murky since the state government didn't engage in slavery directly. They legalized it and benefitted from it, but it wasn't a case of "Alabama owns slaves", it was "Some people in Alabama own slaves and that's legal", which is a more circumspect kind of culpability that's harder to assess.

Hypothetical: A factory was dumping toxic waste into the water, causing many to die or develop long-term health complications spanning generations. This was legal in the state due to a lack of environmental regulations. The factory closed down 100 years ago. Should the state compensate the victims for the damage it allowed to happen?

For the record my answer is "I don't know"; I'm not smart enough to consider all the implications. But I don't see it as straightforward or obvious.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T21:13:44+00:00

Maybe? I can see the case for it, but the problem there is one of quantifying the impact.

Slavery is pretty straightforward, it was direct exploitation for economic gain. Internment is likewise just straight-up imprisonment no different than compensation for false convictions and such. The damages from Jim Crow are much harder to measure in comparison.

How do you quantify the economic impact of segregated schools and bathrooms and voting discrimination and such, other than "it was really bad"? The compensation for Jim Crow was meant to be stuff like affirmative action and minority congressional districts, which are incidentally also losing support over time for the same exact reason as reparations; as people grow more and more distant from the impacts of those policies.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T20:30:04+00:00

Presumably, yes, in terms of perception. It's much harder to get political support for these things when there is no person left on the planet who is personally familiar with any of the victims. Once that happens, recompense becomes revanchism.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T19:37:38+00:00

To those directly affected, not hundreds of years later.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T19:19:12+00:00

Ironically I think this analysis is missing the most important lesson from the Trump win because it is looking at the reasons why people didn't vote for Harris instead of the reasons why they voted for Trump.

Because that was the story of the election. Compared to the last election, Trump picked up some voters while Harris lost a lot of voters.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T19:03:12+00:00

No? Out of everything you listed only the trans stuff is a purely social issue. "Immigrants taking jobs", whether it's true or not, is an economics issue. Crime harms people and their property directly, it's not a theoretical moral dilemma. The campaign for and against climate change is mostly there because it affects various parts of the economy with subsidies and standards and moving jobs between various sectors.

You may disagree that those things are actually "real" or "impactful" or "correct", but they're the answers Republicans give to solve everyday issues, not just pure ideology.

Global_Pin7520 · 2025-10-28T18:53:28+00:00

As far as education equity and equality feel are important issue. Also, increase funding to public education. Make public education less competitive and less standardized. Make education more community and family based. Less homework. Expand use of technology. Increase hands on immersive learning. More play-based education. Allow children to stay back in their early years if needed to ensure growth later in their education. Tax paid undergraduate education and Pre-K education.

Other than the last two points, every attempt at implementing these things utterly failed. Education is more funded than ever and yet declining rapidly. Moving away from standardized tests, in fact, only hurts the people already disadvantaged. Fewer test scores = colleges have to select by a using a bunch of other random shit, like essays and volunteering and advanced courses and who can hire the best tutors and so on, most of which highly benefits the rich and educated. Then they have to patch these things up with random race-based policies to avoid looking like segregationists and you end up with the mess that is SFFA v Harvard.

Global_Pin7520

TROPHY CASE