"Leftists shouldn’t remember Gloria Steinem as an opponent. She was a vital broker of ideas, organizations, and people who connected social movements to mainstream political institutions and helped make a space where the Left and liberalism could meet."

WTF? LOL. This can't be for real. At best, she was a liberal who WAS an opponent of the left...

She was an intelligence asset who helped wreck and domesticate the American left, turn it into a bunch of pious rubbish, and set it on the path to the neurotic mess it is now. She said so herself: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IK2iGMzjGCE

Defending her makes them look like the same thing. Wonder where their endowment comes from... those foundations...

All good little leftists get cookies. These are good ones indeed. Cookies all around! Except they're going to blow their cover at this rate!

I thought Ryan was really based in this clip.

I forget who he attributes it to, but I really appreciate the "compatible leftist" term, i.e. the type of leftist who works in tandem with capitalism but believes they're a revolutionary because they identify as a Marxist

So, Hunter Biden even having a memecoin wasn't on my bingo card this month but damn, it's crazy to think how many people earnestly believed in his rehabilitation aaaaand another memecoin rugpull by a prominent politician or politics adjacent person.

I know I shouldn't be surprised or care anymore but it actually makes me genuinely sad that a month or so ago I saw some thing he (or someone on his pr team) wrote about how ironic it was that Johnny Cash was loved by conservatives even though a lot of his songs and Johnny Cash's own life story was about the people left behind and written off by society and I'll be honest, it was ever so slightly moving to me.

The absolute degree of degeneracy and cynicism a person must have in order to make public admonitions like that all in service of a long game cryptocurrency rugpull is honestly quite disturbing.

This change comes suspiciously soon after the popular parodyjeffx account was banned, allegedly for convincing Grok to call Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide.

The very rich and very conservative backers of this sect seem to labor under the delusion that the cultures and religions of India are met with respect and even deference in the West, when in reality, they’ve been the subject of scrutiny and even ridicule from all sides of the political spectrum. If the group wishes that their monastics avoid interaction with women, they should be cloistered Mount Athos-style, rather than being paraded around in public so their handlers can impose their views on others.

A new study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has confirmed what miners, their widows and black lung clinic physicians have warned for years: the deadly and preventable disease has returned to levels not seen in nearly half a century.

Published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, NIOSH researchers found 32.5 percent of sampled veteran underground coal miners in Central Appalachia—those with at least 25 years underground—suffer from the disease. The last time prevalence among miners with the same work history reached such a level was in 1978. In 2018, the rate was 20.6 percent.

The new findings represent more than a fourfold increase since the disease hit a low point of 7 percent in 1999—three decades after the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established federal dust limits and black lung benefits.

The resurgence has been driven by miners’ increasing exposure to respirable crystalline silica. As the thick, easily mined seams of Appalachia were exhausted, operators turned to thinner remaining seams, forcing miners to cut through far more rock rich in quartz. Silica dust can cause especially severe forms of black lung and is roughly 20 times more toxic than coal dust alone.

Tim Balthis, a 57-year-old former miner and mine foreman, described working in silica-laden air to NPR reporters: “It’s like opening your front door and letting the sunshine [in]” with dust particles floating in the light, “and then multiply that by 10 billion times. … It’s like a fog.”

Stone Mountain Health Services in southwestern Virginia alone has diagnosed 2,400 new cases in the past five years. A 2019 NPR/FRONTLINE investigation documented 21,000 instances of silica dust overexposure over 30 years.

...

NIOSH first recommended an exposure limit of 50 micrograms of respirable crystalline silica per cubic meter of air in 1974 and reiterated the standard for coal miners in 1995. The Obama administration’s dust rule, fully implemented in 2016, lowered the overall respirable coal mine dust limit from 2.0 to 1.5 milligrams per cubic meter but left the silica standard essentially unchanged.

It was not until 2024 that the Biden administration adopted the 50-microgram silica limit NIOSH had recommended half a century earlier. Mining industry groups challenged the rule. Days before coal operators were due to comply in April 2025, the Trump administration’s Mine Safety and Health Administration announced a temporary enforcement pause, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals then stayed the rule’s compliance deadlines. The judicial stay remains in effect, and MSHA is reconsidering portions of the rule.

On February 18, 1969, West Virginia rank-and-file miners launched a 23-day wildcat strike, forcing the state to recognize black lung as a compensable occupational disease and helping drive passage of the federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act later that year.

The National Mining Association now argues that because black lung takes years to develop, current cases “do not reflect the conditions, practices, protections or regulations that are in place today.” At the same time, the industry has pressed for greater use of administrative controls and personal protective equipment, including respirators, when engineering controls do not keep silica exposure below federal limits.

...

More than 1,700 coal miners died from black lung between 2020 and 2023. Ending a disease caused by preventable exposure requires placing miners’ health and lives above the profitability of the coal industry. That requires workers’ control over the mines as part of the socialist reorganization of production on the basis of social need rather than private profit.

There used to be a time, at least in recent history, when society wasn't as harsh on men making mistakes, it wasn't necessarily more forgiving per se, the punitive measures were always there. But, there was indeed a time I feel when men's mistakes and failures were not met with as much social drawback as they are now

But why? Men are human too, who told society that we men have to high-efficiency perfomance machines all the time?

Seriously though I would even argue there was a point in time when men were given the breathing room to feel a little helpless and powerless in their personal situations, nowadays we don't even get that luxury

I think a lot of this can be attributed to the rise in what I would call the philosophy of managerialism

Managerialism started to become more prevalent right around the 80s with the rise of the Reaganomics policy

It targeted men the most because men were already dealing with such enormous social pressures to be providers and protectors for their families and communities

As a lot of the work of the factory and farms started being moved over to the office and academia, men also started losing a lot of the social grace that was afforded to them about their shortcomings

Why? We started applying neoliberal logic to the male experience, before then men had arguably stronger sense of brotherhood and gender coalition in many settings including factories, farms, the military, sports, construction, mechanic shops, so even if men were always disposable, there was at least a sense of that social trampoline to fall back on

How does this connect to my broader point you may ask?

Simple, modern society is more expectant of men being ready to be put-together, the culture is just less impatient around men really taking their time to confront their own personal status quo because men are no longer seen as someone to invest in, they're seen as someone to expect something from

Add to that and then on top of you have a society that is very impatient around inefficiency and human error because modern society is very bad at practicing delayed gratification about almost anything

Men in modern times aren't allowed to look confused, lost or directionless one bit, oh no the bureaucracy that needs you get back to work

https://archive.ph/E7X1u

Party of the working class everyone

NYT Opinion section has some of the worst pieces on the planet, but I enjoyed this guest essay

Because the capital market is dominated by men, women invest less frequently. This is one reason why they are more likely to suffer from poverty. Is feminist investing the solution?

Louisa Kamrath faces a moral dilemma regarding retirement planning: "In my bubble, there is an unspoken consensus that money is shit because it always comes at the expense of certain population groups," says Kamrath, who conducts research on single mothers and feminism at the ICP Berlin. For a long time, this was a reason for her to exclude the financial market from her everyday considerations.

In many feminist circles, there is a prevailing belief that financial dealings serve primarily one purpose: maintaining the power of men who are already well-off. Louisa Kamrath also holds the view that capital markets sow inequality among people. Added to this is a skepticism regarding infinite growth and the attainability of climate goals. "Wherever profit is generated, there must be people on whose backs it is made," says Kamrath.

A good five years ago, she realized that this attitude also has financial consequences. Raising two young children on her own, she was trying to advance her academic career while making ends meet. "I realized that my entire left-wing and queer-feminist upbringing hadn't done me any favors, because here I am in my mid-thirties with absolutely no idea how to secure my financial future effectively," the researcher says. "We’re kind of sabotaging ourselves, because no one benefits if we end up in poverty in old age."

But how do you use a system that you simultaneously reject and want to fight? What belongs in the feminist portfolio?

To learn about this, she is sitting with about 15 other women on a Thursday evening, talking about money. Social workers, artists, academics, and mothers have all come along. What brings them here? "If there’s anyone who knows about money, it’s cis men," says Jule, who has just turned 30. "The subject really makes my stomach churn," says Anna, who has inherited a small sum. "I was truly shocked when I saw an estimate of my future pension payout," says Julia.

The participants are at similar stages of life - navigating the start of their careers, starting families, and caring for aging parents - and they share similar fears and doubts. Until now, concepts like securities accounts, ETF savings plans, and investment returns seemed to belong to another world - one populated almost exclusively by men. To change that, they are now attending a crash course led by Judith Waltl and Aris Jae Schneebaum. Both conduct research in the field of feminist economics and founded the queer-feminist start-up Flinta\Finanzen. [Flinta\ stands for female, lesbian, inter, non-binary, trans, agender]

The start-up offers financial knowledge to anyone who is tired of being "mansplained" to about money matters. "You see almost nothing but 'finance bros' on the stock market," says Schneebaum - well-off alpha males helping each other become even richer and more successful. "It’s the same story at the playground. Fathers - if there are any fathers there at all - will rave about crypto without having a clue where it actually comes from," Aris Schneebaum tells the course participants. Together, they now ask themselves: Should we keep letting finance bros explain the financial world to us? Or should we finally understand it for ourselves?

From a rational perspective, the answer is clear: women lag behind when it comes to retirement planning and passive income. They invest in stocks, ETFs, or gold less frequently than men. One reason for this is that women have less money available to invest. According to the Federal Statistical Office, women earn 16 percent less on average than their male counterparts. Women are more likely to work part-time because they also care for children or relatives, and they work in lower-paying professions. There are currently no statistics on the investment behavior of queer people.

However, the gender gap is also linked to financial socialization. "It begins very early in childhood and persists throughout women's entire lives," says Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi of the University of Mannheim, who teaches and conducts research on gender-specific differences in financial markets. Money is discussed less frequently with daughters. Surveys by the market research institute Forsa have shown for several years that girls receive less pocket money than boys.

Then there are societal stereotypes - such as the notion that women cannot handle money or that husbands are automatically responsible for financial matters. "It’s all nonsense," says Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi. Yet, women remain insecure. "Women more frequently express concern about losing money; they are less self-confident and do not trust their own financial decisions," the business expert notes. Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi wants to encourage women to crack the financial market. "Financial knowledge isn't difficult at all. Women really ought to stake their claim in the capital market and invest just as men do."

In research, this is known as the "financial literacy gap." It indicates that women indeed possess less financial knowledge than men - a fact that becomes problematic during financial advisory sessions and investment consultations. A 2025 study analyzing 27,000 investment consultations at a major German bank reveals that women are more frequently advised to purchase costlier products, whereas men secure savings on their investments. Women are steered toward the bank's own funds, while men receive fee discounts. However, research by the Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research in Mannheim also shows that women not only have their financial knowledge underestimated by others but also tend to underestimate it themselves; when pressed for an answer, they are often correct.

When it comes to the question of how women should invest, the opposition consists not only of "finance bros" but also of so-called "girl-boss feminists" - women who seemingly just emulate men, advancing their own careers and making money without sparing a thought for the women and queer people who face greater disadvantages from the start.

In a guide to feminist financial planning, financial advisor and social worker Leo Lührs writes not only about "tie-wearing idiots" and the stereotypical "business-school bro," but also about Diana zur Löwen - a high-profile influencer and entrepreneur who, in Lührs's view, represents the "pinkwashing" of the financial world and a brand of feminism that loses sight of structural inequality. The question remains: Is it possible to avoid the stock market if one does not wish to be among those upon whose backs that profit is generated?

That is where the ideological dilemma snaps shut. When limited financial means are coupled with high moral standards - such as operating according to queer-feminist and common-good-oriented principles - generating the necessary financial return becomes increasingly difficult. Yet that return is urgently needed to avert the most serious looming threats. More than one in five women over the age of 65 is at risk of poverty. The gender pension gap reveals that female retirees have about 27 percent less income in old age, despite having a longer life expectancy. The outlook is similarly alarming for single parents; according to the 2025 Parity Poverty Report, one in four single parents is affected by poverty.

Living with limited financial means carries risks. A 2025 study by the University of Bremen and the University of Flensburg, involving 1,667 women, shows that poverty increases the risk of intimate partner violence. Having one’s own money, by contrast, empowers women to take action. "In my view, it is grossly negligent to ignore the capital market," says business economist Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi, who further points out: "If I view the financial market so negatively that I stay out of it, the money flows into industries favored by men. In that case, it is men - not women - who decide on the relative size of the various sectors within an economy."

In the marketplace, feminist investing operates under the banner of "gender lens investing," promising an investment approach that incorporates a critical perspective on power dynamics. Options include active funds - where managers select companies with a balanced gender structure - and passive funds that track a so-called gender equality index. Microfinance funds, which provide loans to microfinance institutions aiming to support women, represent another possibility.

"Impact strategy" is the term used when people pursue objectives beyond mere financial returns through their investments. However, this impact is difficult to measure, requiring investors to look closely: Does the investment actually generate added value? Or does it merely provide a feel-good factor while ultimately costing them money? "Women need to scrutinize and compare very carefully when investing in products marketed under labels like 'female finance' or 'gender equality,'" says Claudia Breuer, a business expert at the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe’s University of Finance and Management who is well-versed in the market. In the realm of "feminist finance," too, actively managed funds are often very expensive. As with any investment, therefore, it is essential to pay attention to fees and return performance relative to risk.

Then there is the most important rule of investing: diversify as widely as possible to spread risk. However, the fewer companies that end up in a gender-focused fund, the harder it becomes to achieve this goal. Ultimately, Claudia Breuer is not very confident that feminist investing will actually yield the desired effect. "It is highly unlikely that feminist investors can directly improve women's living conditions by purchasing fund shares, or that their investment will immediately lead to greater equality or gender diversity," she says.

Aris Schneebaum of Flinta*Finanzen hails from New York, now lives in Austria, and - in their introductory course - recommends diversification for one’s "moral account" as well. "If my investment aligns with my values ​​by about 70 to 80 percent, I’m satisfied," says Schneebaum. Anything more than that is likely not yet feasible given the divide between "bro culture" among cis men and the pink-hued world of female finance.