Okay!

(i’m not commenting on religions, except to the degree they behave as political movements.)

cut him loose in what sense? is your view that the Trump administration will start restricting travel unless SCOTUS intervenes to forbid it? (or perhaps the same dynamic but more quietly, the administration only does it once they’re pretty sure the court will play ball?)

what odds would you give to some Americans being prevented from international travel (by eg passport revocation) at the pure discretion of the executive branch, within the next three years?

yet more evidence that the writers lack subtlety. ht @pamelahayter.bsky.social

every accusation is a confession, part MDLVXIII.

it’s rather astonishing how a news event that to a first, second, and third approximation has nothing at all to do with trans people has nevertheless been dominated by controversializing about trans people.

there is a bit of an eat-your-vegetables aspect, but in the same way that in the old days National Enquirer and Weekly World News might have been “more fun” than your daily newspaper, but you weren’t actually all that tempted to do your reading there.

@jorgeo.bsky.social great to see you!

totally a good idea to trust US tech cos with your confessions.

it’s remarkable how prominent Korean reporting of the experience of their workers in ICE detention is in my timeline here, while on my Twitter timeline it is completely eclipsed by US culture wars and Elon’s ragebaiting. i’m sorry if people are mean to you but i score this a big win for #blueskyism

it’s usually a bad sign!

political movements that center martyrdom tend not to be great political movements.

soon vaccines will be inaccessible but this will be covered preventative care.

#twitterism

some of the most horrible ways to murder people are to starve them, or to take away their lifesaving medication abruptly, leaving no plausible path to find a replacement source in time.

one can just consistently disapprove of murder. one will find one has a great deal to disapprove of.

when a person tells you they are very confident—“100%”, “95% sure”—of a conclusion on a disputed matter about which they’ve no special information, the rational response is to downgrade your estimate of the reliability of the source, not upgrade your estimate of the reliability of the conclusion.

its okay!