Firegriff
@firegriff.bsky.social
College graduate,former retail Co Manager, cook, writer (currently unpublished except for a recipe), father of a neurodivergent daughter, gamer of various forms (video games, RPGs, MTG, trading card games, etc).
Fascists always claim that their opposition are guilty of great crimes. Especially when their words remind others about actual laws the fascists want to break.
November 23, 2025 at 10:01 PM
Fascists always claim that their opposition are guilty of great crimes. Especially when their words remind others about actual laws the fascists want to break.
"Divisive concepts" is a legal term in several states now use. Laws revolving around them prohibit being compelled to assent to the beliefs involved in the symbols, but do not ban their use in public institutions receiving state funds. So there is VERY MUCH a difference.
November 21, 2025 at 7:34 PM
"Divisive concepts" is a legal term in several states now use. Laws revolving around them prohibit being compelled to assent to the beliefs involved in the symbols, but do not ban their use in public institutions receiving state funds. So there is VERY MUCH a difference.
Do you really want to be arguing that someone might make valid arguments as to why they should be allowed to have an exception about displaying and using nooses and swastikas as symbols? That is the difference between hate symbols and divisive symbols. If you can argue 1st Amendment access to use.
November 21, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Do you really want to be arguing that someone might make valid arguments as to why they should be allowed to have an exception about displaying and using nooses and swastikas as symbols? That is the difference between hate symbols and divisive symbols. If you can argue 1st Amendment access to use.
It's the difference between the meanings of hate and divisive. Hate implies that there are no circumstances where it can be seen as acceptable by a decent member of society. Which definitely applies to nooses and swasitkas. Divisive implies that there are reasons that someone might disagree on it.
November 21, 2025 at 7:29 PM
It's the difference between the meanings of hate and divisive. Hate implies that there are no circumstances where it can be seen as acceptable by a decent member of society. Which definitely applies to nooses and swasitkas. Divisive implies that there are reasons that someone might disagree on it.
To test the waters, so to speak. To see how much backlash there would be to making swastikas and nooses even remotely less unacceptable.
November 21, 2025 at 7:20 PM
To test the waters, so to speak. To see how much backlash there would be to making swastikas and nooses even remotely less unacceptable.
No one said it was going to be removed from being PROHIBITED. But reclassifying it makes it harder to use as an example of harassment, and also opens it up for First Amendment protections, saying that some good people want to use the symbols. POTENTIALLY DIVISIVE.
November 21, 2025 at 7:19 PM
No one said it was going to be removed from being PROHIBITED. But reclassifying it makes it harder to use as an example of harassment, and also opens it up for First Amendment protections, saying that some good people want to use the symbols. POTENTIALLY DIVISIVE.
Beyond that, do you REALLY want to defend the swastika and the noose in the workplace? Seems like a disturbing hill to stand on. No good person would argue on their behalf, or try to downplay their horrible histories.
November 21, 2025 at 6:56 AM
Beyond that, do you REALLY want to defend the swastika and the noose in the workplace? Seems like a disturbing hill to stand on. No good person would argue on their behalf, or try to downplay their horrible histories.
You're mistaken on that. There are implications regarding how harassment complaints are handled based on the designation for a start. Divisive symbols tend to be seen as protected by Free Speech clauses, even if they are despicable. It also implies that there are two sides with even value to debate
November 21, 2025 at 6:54 AM
You're mistaken on that. There are implications regarding how harassment complaints are handled based on the designation for a start. Divisive symbols tend to be seen as protected by Free Speech clauses, even if they are despicable. It also implies that there are two sides with even value to debate
In case anyone wasn't aware: www.nbcnews.com/news/militar...
Coast Guard set to change policy on swastikas and nooses
The shift will classify the symbols as "potentially divisive.” Displaying them had been called “a potential hate incident.”
www.nbcnews.com
November 21, 2025 at 2:49 AM
In case anyone wasn't aware: www.nbcnews.com/news/militar...
IF evidence actually supports the claim, then yes. But from what we have seen of this particular DOJ's corruption and willingness to target Trump's political rivals for made up crimes.... yeah, I'm going to need the evidence first.
November 20, 2025 at 12:20 AM
IF evidence actually supports the claim, then yes. But from what we have seen of this particular DOJ's corruption and willingness to target Trump's political rivals for made up crimes.... yeah, I'm going to need the evidence first.
I think, perhaps, because no man condemned the misogynistic comment. And no woman did either. The blatant hate and vitriol of the comment allowed to pass without challenge, followed by an open attack on the first Ammendment, and no one called him out for it. We have become a nation of cowards.
November 19, 2025 at 1:29 PM
I think, perhaps, because no man condemned the misogynistic comment. And no woman did either. The blatant hate and vitriol of the comment allowed to pass without challenge, followed by an open attack on the first Ammendment, and no one called him out for it. We have become a nation of cowards.
I just keep in mind that I am not speaking for their benefit necessarily. I try to bear in mind that my response may impact others that read the interaction and make sure I present the evidence and facts so that those who are honestly seeking may find them.
November 19, 2025 at 5:40 AM
I just keep in mind that I am not speaking for their benefit necessarily. I try to bear in mind that my response may impact others that read the interaction and make sure I present the evidence and facts so that those who are honestly seeking may find them.
Don't forget, immediate rant into closing down ABC because he didn't think they kiss the ring enough.
November 19, 2025 at 3:58 AM
Don't forget, immediate rant into closing down ABC because he didn't think they kiss the ring enough.
Ok, Alex Jones. Grab yourself a snickers bar. You're hungry. Then go sleep in bed until you're ready to face reality.
November 19, 2025 at 2:45 AM
Ok, Alex Jones. Grab yourself a snickers bar. You're hungry. Then go sleep in bed until you're ready to face reality.
which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof; or
(2) Willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (a)(1) of this section."
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/...
(2) Willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (a)(1) of this section."
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/...
11 CFR § 110.16 - Prohibitions on fraudulent misrepresentations.
www.law.cornell.edu
November 19, 2025 at 2:08 AM
which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof; or
(2) Willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (a)(1) of this section."
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/...
(2) Willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (a)(1) of this section."
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/...
(1) Fraudulently misrepresent the person or any committee or organization under the person's control as speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof in a matter
November 19, 2025 at 2:08 AM
(1) Fraudulently misrepresent the person or any committee or organization under the person's control as speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof in a matter
"§ 110.16 Prohibitions on fraudulent misrepresentations.
(a) In general. No person who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall—
(a) In general. No person who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall—
November 19, 2025 at 2:08 AM
"§ 110.16 Prohibitions on fraudulent misrepresentations.
(a) In general. No person who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall—
(a) In general. No person who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall—
There is value to failure. But Trump's track record is more akin to Einstein's definitely of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. He was also HIDING his failure in business in an attempt to manipulate the people into voting for him by lying.
November 19, 2025 at 2:03 AM
There is value to failure. But Trump's track record is more akin to Einstein's definitely of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. He was also HIDING his failure in business in an attempt to manipulate the people into voting for him by lying.
And it isn't fraud to run on being a successful businessman as part of why you should be President, and the tax paperwork you refused to release indicate you are, in fact a terrible businessman? Either way you look at it, Trump should not have been elected.
November 18, 2025 at 6:41 AM
And it isn't fraud to run on being a successful businessman as part of why you should be President, and the tax paperwork you refused to release indicate you are, in fact a terrible businessman? Either way you look at it, Trump should not have been elected.
It is important to be clear that there is a difference between the sides. The Republicans are sacrificing every moral they have to stop the release of the files. The Democrats and Independents want EVERYONE, regardless of party, held accountable for crimes against children and young women.
November 17, 2025 at 11:04 PM
It is important to be clear that there is a difference between the sides. The Republicans are sacrificing every moral they have to stop the release of the files. The Democrats and Independents want EVERYONE, regardless of party, held accountable for crimes against children and young women.
It's looking more and more likely by the day that Trump wasn't JUST an Epstein Client... but also Epstein's business partner. An awful lot of Epstein's victims seem to have originated in Trump related businesses and modeling contests.
November 17, 2025 at 4:03 AM
It's looking more and more likely by the day that Trump wasn't JUST an Epstein Client... but also Epstein's business partner. An awful lot of Epstein's victims seem to have originated in Trump related businesses and modeling contests.
Cuddling pandas are always a welcome sight.
a red panda at the cincinnati zoo is walking through the snow
ALT: a red panda at the cincinnati zoo is walking through the snow
media.tenor.com
November 10, 2025 at 8:01 PM
Cuddling pandas are always a welcome sight.