Gonna once again point out that everyone has carried around a rectangle containing infinite pornography for the past decade minimum and society didn't dissolve so miss me with any weepy handwringing about smut.
This is, like, a notably incoherent racing automatic thoughts stream of consciousness ramble, even for her.
The trans NB employee fired by Chili's for being trans worked at their Rosemont, IL location. For all the furries out there, this is across I-90 from MFF
Y'all might want to avoid Chili's & Maggiano's, especially when MFF rolls around later in the year. I'm sure there's better places to eat out at
tapping the sign again:
no, sanitizing queer spaces of “problematic art” was never going to discourage them from censoring & criminalizing us, their goal isn’t “acceptable” queer expression, it’s none at all.
wake the fuck up & stop projecting your discomfort onto others.
At this point it's barely even a boycott, I've just stopped thinking of Target as a place to buy the things I used to buy at Target.
"We just want sports to be fair, and that requires non-athletes to detransition involuntarily, for some reason!"
"Sure, PewDiePie said a slur, but you gotta subtract the number of times that he *didn't* say a slur!"
This is a post about Gavin Newsom.
I think Subscribestar is useful in that it makes a very standard walkback tactic more obvious. Bluesky did the same thing about it's ToS changes ("nothing is changing, we're just clarifying").
What platforms do is introduce new restrictions, say "no we didn't" and then just leave it in limbo.
Self-organized student protests and walkouts against ICE show no signs of slowing down. www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/09/c...
"I stopped at two red lights and only ran one, so that actually means I ran negative-one red lights" ass nonsense math.
Newsom Defenders be like "Sure he said he supports that particular kind of anti-trans discrimination, but he said he's against these other five kinds, so if you think about that it means he supports negative-four kinds of discrimination!"
"Oh so just because the constant complaint from the people we're trying to appeal to is not that we aren't sufficiently mildly-conservative but that they hate disingenuous opportunists, you want us to not openly be disingenuous opportunists to pose as mildly-conservative?" -Democratic strategists
This poem is so beautiful.
Public officails should not be allowed to sign an NDA.
So his position is that as governor he will enforce the state's laws, even though he expressly says this one ought to be changed to match what Trump was demanding.
Is that enough nuance for you? Or is that actually too much nuance for the conclusion you want to reach?
So your math is that if you oppose 8 forms of discrimination, you're allowed to support 1 form of discrimination and nobody is allowed to say that constitutes support for 1 form of discrimination?
Or is your number even lower than 8 and you were just adding extra examples?
You sure spend a lot of time trying to persuade people on the internet for someone who claims you possess no powers of persuasion.
If he insists on selective discrimination and not opposing genocide, then he cannot win as a Democratic candidate so you have chosen a scenario where Vance wins tautologically.
It is accurate to say that Newsom opposes anti-trans discrimination on more issues than the non-zero number of issues where he supports it. And that his most egregious position is less extreme than, say, the Heritage Foundation.
That only means he is transphobic but less so.
But they don't cancel out, they coexist.
Someone can't claim to be non-racist because they're racist against fewer races than they're okay with, or only racist about a minority of topics involving race.
That's just *less* racist, not *non*-racist
If you were arguing that he is *less* transphobic, I would agree.
If you said he is transphobic on *fewer* issues, I would agree.
But you can't seem to handle that nuance. You're arguing that he is zero transphobic because the number of things he isn't transphobic on outnumber the ones that he is.
He literally said laws should be passed to force trans women out of women's sports!
That is a transphobic position REGARDLESS of what other things he has done!
You don't get a One Transphobic Discrimination Free card for every ten discriminations you oppose!
That's not how it works!
"I'm right because I ignored you" is not the argument you seem to think it is...
Impressively, you failed to accurately describe what Sobek was saying in *both* of those paraphrases.
So what is the exact mathematical formula for how many kinds of discrimination you oppose for it to be okay to advocate for one other kind of discrimination?
Since that seems to be the basis of your argument.
That he gets a free pass for one kind because he opposes so many others
This is just the same thought-terminating cliche again.
I really get the feeling that what is happening here is that *Theo* supports sports discrimination and he really wants to argue that that doesn't constitute a transphobic position so long as the person opposes other discrimination, rather than reexamining his priors.
Nice thought-terminating cliche you have deployed to avoid addressing the point being made, buddy
So here's the thing.
If you were willing to engage with nuance in the words of anyone else in addition to Gavin, you would understand that your description of Sobek's post doesn't actually match the post.
