I finally finished all my Christmas cards and got them sent out today.

I always forget how much work it is to use the vinyl cutter and how annoying my printer is, but I think they turned out well in spite of several technical issues.

I wish I could say I was surprised to see Disney pulling such a transphobic and cowardly move, but it’s certainly not the first time they’ve done it.

I hope negative backlash can effect some change within Disney, but seeing as they didn’t learn their lesson with Moon Girl, I wouldn’t hold my breath…

That’s a pretty big question, with a couple of different interpretations. If you are asking how I handle thinking about the passage of time, the easiest answer is to make it tomorrow’s problem. This is probably not the healthiest answer; but it doesn’t pay to stress over inevitabilities, so I just do my best to put them out of my mind.

If you are asking the best way to utilize your time, my recommendation is to start focusing on yourself immediately. It’s very easy to prioritize work by staying late or overworking yourself to make your bosses happy, but no amount of overwork will ever satiate your company; it will only serve to drain the life from your body. It’s very important to set firm boundaries with your job. I, personally, will not even look at my work phone or computer the minute I leave the office (on Mon-WFH days) and have a hard stop every day at 5PM unless agreed upon well in advance. You lose so much time and energy to your job that just standing firm on your boundaries can be a huge QoL boost.

Please also do your best to cultivate a creative outlet as a hobby. A lot of people don’t think they are/can be creative, but anyone can be creative if they find the right outlet. It could be art, sewing, crochet, music, writing, or even creative programming. The important thing is to find a way to explore your feelings and do something productive with them. In my experience, I am often the most vivacious are when I am making art in one form or another; I highly recommend it.

The concept of banning books has always been ridiculous to me. Even if you don’t agree with what’s in the book, just… don’t read it…?

Banning books only serves to control the actions of others, so I applaud this law for protecting Californians from bigots looking to control them.

It is also worth noting that this article points out that half the censored books had marginalized communities as their subjects. If you really want to piss off one of these book banning bigots, be sure to read books from marginalized authors; and make sure your legislature knows you don’t approve of book bans.

I’ve seen some interesting takes on this elsewhere as well. If Twitter is making the legal argument that all the accounts belong to them explicitly, would that make them responsible for all the content they host as well?

They basically get away with all the hate speech and copyright infringement because they are considered a “safe harbor,” not the owners of the content themselves; but if they’re the owner of the content, the safe harbor status might not apply…

While the fact that Twitter is run by a flagrant right-wing fascist who would do anything to help other major right-wing fascists is nothing new, I did think this was an interesting look at the state of social media.

The idea that you can never own your own account (and likely, by extension, anything you post on said account) really drives home the point that the Internet as it is now is basically wholly owned by a handful of corporations.

I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to reach the point of everyone making their own silly little sites again. It seems like social media is now required to drive views, so the artists who need views for sales will always need to be on social media.

Luckily, decentralized social media is on the rise. Lemmy, while still comparatively small, has a fairly active user base; and while Mastodon has not (and likely will not) ever be mainstream, even Bluesky is technically decentralized as well (I think).

Having said all that, I would very much like to see people making their own sites just for things they enjoy. It’s surprisingly not that hard to do as long as you don’t need it very polished.

I’m not super plugged into the world of music, so you know it’s bad when I’ve heard someone got owned so hard they’re suing over it.

I’m honestly not even sure what the end goal is for Drake, since all he is doing is bringing it to the forefront of the public consciousness again. (I guess he must have been impressed with how well similar tactics worked out for another musician, Barbara Streisand…)

That is really the term. Of course, every time a new wave of users join, they always say they’ll never call them “skeets,” but they usually change their mind in time.

In my personal opinion, I actually really appreciate them being called “skeets.” It kind of serves as a reminder that they are not to be taken seriously. I also appreciate that calling them “skeets” will help deter large corporations from joining for some time. (What company wants to be associated with a social media site where the posts are a tongue-in-cheek reference to ejaculate?)

I think (/hope) trolls are going to have a pretty hard time gaining traction on Bluesky. As you’ve mentioned, the block lists are quite effective; but also the lack of algorithm helps too. No matter how many likes/reskeets an offensive skeet gets, I will never see it unless someone I follow specifically reskeets it themselves.

With this in mind, most people seeing the trolls’ posts will likely only be the trolls themselves. Of course they can hop into the comments of a popular skeet; but once they are blocked by the original poster, their skeet becomes removed for everybody.

From what I can tell, the enhanced moderation tools combined with the followed-only feed should make being a troll on Bluesky much harder…

It seems like Twitter may have passed the thermocline and now seems to be hemorrhaging left leaning users.

What I found interesting about this article was how the right leaning users are likely to follow them because they need the left leaning users for engagement. I suppose on some level it’s common sense. Truth Social and Gab never took off for a reason; but it’s still interesting to think about.

Some Representatives are making statements, though I’m not sure what it would take to have this officially dealt with.

Right now, the declaration is still pretty new; but I bet if you contacted some of the local LGBTQ+ orgs in your area, they might know of demonstrations that are being organized currently.

I don’t think the Old Testament is particularly anti-trans either. Most Republicans use the Bible as a way to launder their own hateful views, but I doubt if they’re even remotely religious at all.

I wonder what kind of reaction you would get from a Republican Representative if you told one that Speaker Johnson is violating women’s spaces by making a rule that forces men to use the ladies restroom and that it makes you very uncomfortable.

I do worry that could backfire and they might just make a secondary rule punishing trans men, though…

I usually try to call my Representative and Senators during my commute. The only tricky part is remembering the bill numbers.

I have the distinct impression I’m going to have something to say to them every day over the next four years…

This is especially vile to announce on Transgender Day of Remembrance; but I have no doubt in my mind that it was intentional.

This feels like a move made with the explicit purpose of hurting people as much as possible. (“The cruelty is the point.”)

To my knowledge, there is no legal recourse for this, but I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong…

I know it likely won’t do much, but I do recommend calling your representatives. I asked mine to issue a statement saying that they will not be party to enforcing this rule. I hope they issue such a statement of solidarity soon 🤞

To me, it feels like fear-mongering. If you don’t think trans people are dangerous, you won’t “need” a Republican to “protect” you from them.

The bathroom argument is especially silly when you recall that unisex bathrooms have existed for a long time, and all they require is better stalls than American bathrooms tend to offer. If protecting people in bathrooms was really a goal, they would just make walls that go to the floor legally required.

I doubt if most of the Republican politicians/ pundits even believe half the stuff they say about trans people. They are simply the target du jour, and Republicans will say anything they can think of to make you afraid of them.

I don’t think anyone could make the case that Rep. McBride is dangerous; but Republicans are fighting not to release the ethics report on Matt Gaetz before he is placed in a position of immense power, when it seems quite likely that he was directly harming women.

As you say, this is all about tormenting Rep. McBride (along with any other Trans women they are able to hurt at the same time).

The bill’s cruelty is precisely why I think it’s so important for every American to contact their representative (even Republican ones). It might not be enough to change a Republican Congressperson’s mind, but it’s good for them to know that the American people are not going to let Trans people be an easy target for them.

I encourage every American reading this article to call their district representative and let them know that you do not approve of this bill. It’s hateful and cruel; and I fear that if it passes, it will pave the way for similar, wider reaching, legislation.

I called my Representative earlier today and their intern was able to tell me the bill number: H.Res.1579. Knowing the number should hopefully make it easier to voice your disgust in this abhorrent bill.

While on the phone (or email) with your Representative, I encourage everyone to voice their displeasure with H.R.9495 as well. H.R.9495 will allow the executive branch to unilaterally declare non-profits as terrorist organizations and strip them of their non-profit status. This would functionally give the executive branch authority to end any non-profit that is engaging in activities they don’t approve of, which would likely result in the destruction of any non-profit engaging in harm reduction.

I encourage every American reading this article to call their district representative and let them know that you do not approve of this bill. It’s hateful and cruel; and I fear that if it passes, it will pave the way for similar, wider reaching, legislation.

I called my Representative earlier today and their intern was able to tell me the bill number: H.Res.1579. Knowing the number should hopefully make it easier to voice your disgust in this abhorrent bill.

While on the phone (or email) with your Representative, I encourage everyone to voice their displeasure with H.R.9495 as well. H.R.9495 will allow the executive branch to unilaterally declare non-profits as terrorist organizations and strip them of their non-profit status. This would functionally give the executive branch authority to end any non-profit that is engaging in activities they don’t approve of, which would likely result in the destruction of any non-profit engaging in harm reduction.

You are unfortunately correct. It looks like it went back up and it is being voted on today. This time it only needs a simple majority, which is would have gotten last time.

This means that calling your representative is even more important this time around.

Luckily, my understanding is this time it will need to pass through the House and the Senate; so hopefully we’ll have more of a shot to knock it out.