Coba Weel's Avatar

Coba Weel

@weel.bsky.social

SJW eurotrash πŸ‡³πŸ‡± immigrant in Alta California 🌁 YIMBY UU queer techie scum ⚧ genderqueer tranny (she/her or they/them) πŸͺ—

1,220 Followers  |  786 Following  |  8,740 Posts  |  Joined: 03.07.2023  |  2.0226

Latest posts by weel.bsky.social on Bluesky

lovely music! (also interesting video but you knew that)

06.12.2025 11:43 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

what snake oil salesmen told her there’s such a thing as the β€œbaroness of margarine” (gonna let the autocorrect spelling stand there…)

06.12.2025 11:07 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

California Attorney General Rob Bonta continues to stand up and fight for trans healthcare, joining with AGs from 20 states to defend patient privacy. πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈβœŠ

05.12.2025 19:16 β€” πŸ‘ 17    πŸ” 2    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

sponsored by the flashing and mold mitigation industry

05.12.2025 19:42 β€” πŸ‘ 7    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

circling back on your double click

05.12.2025 19:36 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

do i want to know the context or wtf he could mean by culturally normal? because i feel like i’d really rather not

05.12.2025 19:36 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

sure is

05.12.2025 19:30 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

yeah except they won’t. at least not for now. because the federal prosecution system has become politicized. there’s a lot to fix.

05.12.2025 10:41 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

oh a absolutely. and a violation of us domestic law, too.

05.12.2025 10:39 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Seems like Dublin's policy of not having a military has downsides.

05.12.2025 10:14 β€” πŸ‘ 46    πŸ” 4    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

and anyway it’s clearly against domestic law, no?

05.12.2025 10:26 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

yeah but the us is not party to that …

05.12.2025 10:25 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

the hague invasion act is still on the books, too

05.12.2025 10:25 β€” πŸ‘ 6    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

the US would have to ratify the treaty first, no?

05.12.2025 10:24 β€” πŸ‘ 7    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

sheesh wonder why

05.12.2025 10:10 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

i should’ve said β€œstrategically useless” rather than β€œirrelevant”
because things like destroying relationships with allies is strategically very relevant, just not in a useful way

05.12.2025 10:09 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

the problem as i see it is that sabotaging relationships and punching down at less powerful nations does not require a unified vision or a long term plan, but pushing back on the very real and very questionable shenanigans of rival superpowers does

05.12.2025 10:07 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

and i know full well US foreign policy is a mixed bag. but as the strategically relevant stuff is going down the tubes, the focus on strategically irrelevant but morally highly questionable shit is AFAICT only getting stronger.

05.12.2025 09:58 β€” πŸ‘ 3    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

whatever faction wrote that particular document says they want that. what they actually want and who they actually are is a mystery. you cannot currently assume that the US government speaks with a unified voice on international relations. interagency process and elite consensus are dead.

05.12.2025 09:47 β€” πŸ‘ 6    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

if you go by the normie definition, it already is

05.12.2025 08:10 β€” πŸ‘ 8    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

if you go by the β€œif it’s relevant it’s not left” definition popular with the most annoying people on the internet, sure

05.12.2025 08:09 β€” πŸ‘ 7    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Yeah pretty much. There’s many factions in the US government, more so than usual, because the leadership is not just wrong but also weak. Some of the factions are more aligned with treaty allies than others. But the ones that are don’t consistently have the upper hand right now.

05.12.2025 08:07 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Yeah. And Turkey isn’t, mostly, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re talking about either, oddly. They’re just racist, that doesn’t mean they’re logically coherent about it.

05.12.2025 07:51 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

If anyone wants to make the CA ban on gendered signage on single stall bathrooms a real enforceable thing, that would be great. Because currently, ain’t.

05.12.2025 06:09 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

My understanding is that in practice it does end up affecting new construction.

05.12.2025 06:07 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0
Preview
Ting plans education campaign on gender-neutral bathroom signs Bay Area Reporter

At least that’s what I remembered. The only article I can track down is this which is not as strident as I remember but anyhow, the statute is not enforceable, because making it so would’ve required extra legislative process (the β€œsuspense file”…) www.ebar.com/story/33684

05.12.2025 06:07 β€” πŸ‘ 3    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 1

That is what Phil Ting’s press release said when he his bill passed. It does not actually accomplish that. By the time Bay Area Reporter caught on, everyone had already copied the press release and moved on.

05.12.2025 06:00 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

at least california technically sort of bans that

(not really, which is phil ting’s fault)

05.12.2025 05:59 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

i’m not sure exactly why i’m in an undiplomatic mood today but you’ve been warned

05.12.2025 05:57 β€” πŸ‘ 3    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

maybe they’ll get rid of the anti NATO plank when NATO collapses, too

not holding out hope though

05.12.2025 05:56 β€” πŸ‘ 12    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 1

@weel is following 20 prominent accounts