Reticent Riel
@reticentriel.bsky.social
Christ Follower - Seeking his kingdom through love - Rejecting earthly kingdoms of hate
So is this the money that was supposed to update aging military housing? I know a lot of housing has been trying to manage mold and decay.
December 19, 2025 at 12:28 PM
So is this the money that was supposed to update aging military housing? I know a lot of housing has been trying to manage mold and decay.
Which ultimately proves my point. The only way the four letters in OP works is the name of the letters b,m,p,w.
It's clear with context. Otherwise you're just arguing with the dictionary.
It's clear with context. Otherwise you're just arguing with the dictionary.
December 18, 2025 at 10:46 PM
Which ultimately proves my point. The only way the four letters in OP works is the name of the letters b,m,p,w.
It's clear with context. Otherwise you're just arguing with the dictionary.
It's clear with context. Otherwise you're just arguing with the dictionary.
What? There's no lip touching in R. None, whatsoever.
"douBle-u" touches on the B sound, hence B,M,P,W.
"douBle-u" touches on the B sound, hence B,M,P,W.
December 18, 2025 at 10:24 PM
What? There's no lip touching in R. None, whatsoever.
"douBle-u" touches on the B sound, hence B,M,P,W.
"douBle-u" touches on the B sound, hence B,M,P,W.
How do you say R?
December 18, 2025 at 8:01 PM
How do you say R?
Which leaves you with 4...
b,p,m,w.
b,p,m,w.
December 18, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Which leaves you with 4...
b,p,m,w.
b,p,m,w.
How does he manage to sound like he's mindlessly rambling and poorly reading from a teleprompter at the same time?
December 18, 2025 at 1:34 PM
How does he manage to sound like he's mindlessly rambling and poorly reading from a teleprompter at the same time?
This is a policy change to standardize the language across ALL THINGS divisive TO hate, removing loopholes for enforcement.
So you can keep looking for conspiracies and feed into the GOP narrative that "libs are out to get us!" OR you could READ THE POLICY!
So you can keep looking for conspiracies and feed into the GOP narrative that "libs are out to get us!" OR you could READ THE POLICY!
December 17, 2025 at 7:34 PM
This is a policy change to standardize the language across ALL THINGS divisive TO hate, removing loopholes for enforcement.
So you can keep looking for conspiracies and feed into the GOP narrative that "libs are out to get us!" OR you could READ THE POLICY!
So you can keep looking for conspiracies and feed into the GOP narrative that "libs are out to get us!" OR you could READ THE POLICY!
You change the language so someone can't argue "it's JUST black face!"
Also, in section 1.a it states "The Coast Guard does not tolerate the display of divisive or hate symbols and flags,
including those identified with oppression or hatred."
Therefore, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A SYMBOL OF HATE!
Also, in section 1.a it states "The Coast Guard does not tolerate the display of divisive or hate symbols and flags,
including those identified with oppression or hatred."
Therefore, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A SYMBOL OF HATE!
December 17, 2025 at 7:34 PM
You change the language so someone can't argue "it's JUST black face!"
Also, in section 1.a it states "The Coast Guard does not tolerate the display of divisive or hate symbols and flags,
including those identified with oppression or hatred."
Therefore, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A SYMBOL OF HATE!
Also, in section 1.a it states "The Coast Guard does not tolerate the display of divisive or hate symbols and flags,
including those identified with oppression or hatred."
Therefore, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A SYMBOL OF HATE!
So being removed from service because something is called divisive instead of a hate symbol is a lesser punishment?
That's the problem? Really?
The policy prohibits both, meaning people are punished uniformly whether they wear black face or threaten with a noose. It's all unacceptable.
That's the problem? Really?
The policy prohibits both, meaning people are punished uniformly whether they wear black face or threaten with a noose. It's all unacceptable.
December 17, 2025 at 5:52 PM
So being removed from service because something is called divisive instead of a hate symbol is a lesser punishment?
That's the problem? Really?
The policy prohibits both, meaning people are punished uniformly whether they wear black face or threaten with a noose. It's all unacceptable.
That's the problem? Really?
The policy prohibits both, meaning people are punished uniformly whether they wear black face or threaten with a noose. It's all unacceptable.
www.news.uscg.mil
December 17, 2025 at 2:45 PM
2. Prohibition.
a. Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but
are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or
adopted by hate-based groups (etc.)
a. Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but
are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or
adopted by hate-based groups (etc.)
December 17, 2025 at 2:40 PM
2. Prohibition.
a. Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but
are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or
adopted by hate-based groups (etc.)
a. Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but
are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or
adopted by hate-based groups (etc.)
Yeah, the problem with this is that no one actually read the policy, which still strictly prohibits the swastika and noose in the CG.
But you keep getting angry because WP misrepresented the policy and you didn't want to look up the publicly available policy.
www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releas...
But you keep getting angry because WP misrepresented the policy and you didn't want to look up the publicly available policy.
www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releas...
www.news.uscg.mil
December 17, 2025 at 2:40 PM
Yeah, the problem with this is that no one actually read the policy, which still strictly prohibits the swastika and noose in the CG.
But you keep getting angry because WP misrepresented the policy and you didn't want to look up the publicly available policy.
www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releas...
But you keep getting angry because WP misrepresented the policy and you didn't want to look up the publicly available policy.
www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releas...
It really is a massive scandal when the Washington Post posts misleading information and everyone spreads it like wildfire because it fits the narrative.
No one stops to do their research. They just get more angry. And Washington Post banks that money.
No one stops to do their research. They just get more angry. And Washington Post banks that money.
December 17, 2025 at 12:51 PM
It really is a massive scandal when the Washington Post posts misleading information and everyone spreads it like wildfire because it fits the narrative.
No one stops to do their research. They just get more angry. And Washington Post banks that money.
No one stops to do their research. They just get more angry. And Washington Post banks that money.
@meidastouch.com
I'm so tired of this story. It's misleading and has been since it first broke.
The policy standardized the language but does not "downgrade" and treatment of these symbols.
Did anyone actually read the policy? Because I did....
I'm so tired of this story. It's misleading and has been since it first broke.
The policy standardized the language but does not "downgrade" and treatment of these symbols.
Did anyone actually read the policy? Because I did....
December 16, 2025 at 9:54 PM
@meidastouch.com
I'm so tired of this story. It's misleading and has been since it first broke.
The policy standardized the language but does not "downgrade" and treatment of these symbols.
Did anyone actually read the policy? Because I did....
I'm so tired of this story. It's misleading and has been since it first broke.
The policy standardized the language but does not "downgrade" and treatment of these symbols.
Did anyone actually read the policy? Because I did....
This is a misleading article based on a misleading understanding of the policy.
The policy standardized enforcement of ALL divisive symbols, still strictly prohibiting ALL hate speech or actions.
Nothing was "downgraded."
The policy standardized enforcement of ALL divisive symbols, still strictly prohibiting ALL hate speech or actions.
Nothing was "downgraded."
December 16, 2025 at 8:15 PM
This is a misleading article based on a misleading understanding of the policy.
The policy standardized enforcement of ALL divisive symbols, still strictly prohibiting ALL hate speech or actions.
Nothing was "downgraded."
The policy standardized enforcement of ALL divisive symbols, still strictly prohibiting ALL hate speech or actions.
Nothing was "downgraded."
Yeah, they state in the introductory remarks that they are not obligated to stay and may leave at any time.
To be fair, it's not like she was truthfully answering any questions prior to this though.
To be fair, it's not like she was truthfully answering any questions prior to this though.
December 12, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Yeah, they state in the introductory remarks that they are not obligated to stay and may leave at any time.
To be fair, it's not like she was truthfully answering any questions prior to this though.
To be fair, it's not like she was truthfully answering any questions prior to this though.
I'd really like one of these articles about the illegality of these actions to go somewhere.
We've all been identifying their illegal actions since day 1.
Can someone actually impeach, charge with treason, war crimes, something?
When the referees don't act, the game turns violent.
We've all been identifying their illegal actions since day 1.
Can someone actually impeach, charge with treason, war crimes, something?
When the referees don't act, the game turns violent.
November 29, 2025 at 1:18 PM
I'd really like one of these articles about the illegality of these actions to go somewhere.
We've all been identifying their illegal actions since day 1.
Can someone actually impeach, charge with treason, war crimes, something?
When the referees don't act, the game turns violent.
We've all been identifying their illegal actions since day 1.
Can someone actually impeach, charge with treason, war crimes, something?
When the referees don't act, the game turns violent.
This entire narrative is misleading and misinformed.
Did any of you actually read the policy?
How about you @kaine.senate.gov ? You all are getting spun up over a misunderstanding of the policy!
Did any of you actually read the policy?
How about you @kaine.senate.gov ? You all are getting spun up over a misunderstanding of the policy!
November 23, 2025 at 1:06 AM
This entire narrative is misleading and misinformed.
Did any of you actually read the policy?
How about you @kaine.senate.gov ? You all are getting spun up over a misunderstanding of the policy!
Did any of you actually read the policy?
How about you @kaine.senate.gov ? You all are getting spun up over a misunderstanding of the policy!
A noose, a swastika, and any symbol co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias."
Someone got worked up over the removal of the term "hate symbol" but the policy NEVER ignored these symbols.
Someone got worked up over the removal of the term "hate symbol" but the policy NEVER ignored these symbols.
November 21, 2025 at 10:43 PM
A noose, a swastika, and any symbol co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias."
Someone got worked up over the removal of the term "hate symbol" but the policy NEVER ignored these symbols.
Someone got worked up over the removal of the term "hate symbol" but the policy NEVER ignored these symbols.
The policy update has always said it would prohibit "divisive symbols and flags, including those widely identified with oppression or hatred".
It later says "Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to the following:
It later says "Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to the following:
November 21, 2025 at 10:43 PM
The policy update has always said it would prohibit "divisive symbols and flags, including those widely identified with oppression or hatred".
It later says "Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to the following:
It later says "Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to the following:
It's not a reversal. They never said it was not enforcing restrictions on these symbols. If you read the actual policy they are in fact broadening the language of the policy.
November 21, 2025 at 10:43 PM
It's not a reversal. They never said it was not enforcing restrictions on these symbols. If you read the actual policy they are in fact broadening the language of the policy.
Point of order: can we refrain from calling reporters barn yard animals?
November 18, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Point of order: can we refrain from calling reporters barn yard animals?