tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 16/04/2026@TurboTax lets you file for free *unless* you are unemployed. 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 09/04/2026They failed to sucker us in with NFTs for shitty artwork, with thousands of rug-pull scams from Musk fanboys, with fake stories about "real" people using it, with lies about gas stations and third-world "investor education." So they're going after the poor writers whose livelihoods they destroyed. 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 09/04/2026The reason they built #EmDash is to crowbar #cryptocurrency into our lives. EmDash is Wordpress but with crypto payments built in. It's a Trojan horse to rope all the poor writers out there into breathing life into the slave-currency that Libertarian extremists like Musk and Thiel crave. Avoid it. 100
Reposted by tomprogersOlúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò @olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social · 20/03/2026if there's one conclusion that the study of both labor history and imperialism converge on, it is that the richest people in the world are happy to burn money on control, power, impunity. and the "everything is about profit" version of anti-capitalism does not survive serious contact with either 9142781176
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 20/03/2026Millions of people have are losing their health care right now Right-wing propaganda is consolidating and getting richer The Attorney General is aiding and abetting a massive conspiracy related to a sex-trafficking ring involving pedophilia We could have elected Harris, but we get this instead 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 14/03/2026"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." -- Ariel Durant 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Scholastic recommends that you surround yourself with 000 to let go of something that's bothering you 020
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026In that case, I will thank you for the civility you have shown me so far, and I will draw the line here. Good day. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Well, I agree with you completely that this rush to seal the deal is incredibly unhealthy. I'd even say dangerous. I've spent my life watching it happen, and have only recently turned my attention to the other side of the equation: how candidates get knocked *out* of the path of the fait accompli. 010
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026To gloss it: I am studying coalition-breaking, I am not currently choosing which politicians to support. (I will make those decisions much later.) Your advice is good advice, for a voter who is choosing candidates. I am not currently a voter, I am a scholar of political speech. 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026You've lost sight of my project. I am not here to make up my mind about Newsom, I am here to observe how people talk about him and what arguments they deploy against him. That means I am in fact going to attend to just the arguments which are actually advanced. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026...although the reality is that I don’t need anyone’s permission to consider myself an ally or to support trans folks, and so I have not attempted to press that issue. I would be pleased if I have convinced you that I am an ally, but I won’t fight over it. Maybe we both take "yes" for an answer? :) 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026...of trans rights is a bridge too far. But I am agnostic about whether that is actually the case -- I am no pollster. All I've done is to defend the very limited statements I made about being open to a trans win by any means. I suppose I have been attempting to defend my claim to be an ally... 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I never suggested anything. You came here to tell me I'm not an ally, and to assert that Dems do not need votes from anyone outside the Dem base to win office. I said I'm open to sneaking a trans ally into office, if it turns out there are some merely-tolerant voters for whom a full embrace... 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I believe what I said is that I am open to the strategy of sneaking a trans ally into office. I concede that subsequently I have gone farther afield than I like, so allow me to revise my statement: I want trans allies to win, and I don't care how they accomplish it. Loud, quiet, Morse code, whatev. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026No, I'm not. I believe Fox damns Dems no matter what. Even if Dems say nothing, Fox will make up stuff that they think will drive "middle America" away, and the pretend that Dems said it. And yes, when it comes to actual policy, the GOP opens with cruelty. You and I are in agreement on this. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Perhaps I am conflating the DNC event and all the Zoom advocacy stuff with the campaign trail. My mistake. 020
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I agree: the debate you and I are having is entirely about how Dems ought to run for office. So, with respect, I am going to bow out of this discussion. There is no position here that I will fight for. I hope Dems win and I hope they enact legislation to protect trans folk. See you on election day. 010
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026And I will add: I suspect the reason Dems have stopped advocating loudly for trans rights after 2024 is *precisely* because Dems suspect that Harris/Walz's bold and proud support for trans rights made it easier for Fox News to drive some voters away from Dems. 300
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Mamdani did that in a blue state, though. If we want to enshrine trans rights in federal policy we will need to win some Congressional and Presidential races outside of Dem strongholds. I don't want to argue about how Dems ought to run for office -- it's not my field and I don't care how they win. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I didn't say lowering trans rights, I said *discussing* trans rights less on the campaign trail. BTW I am not advocating that, I'm just saying I would not necessarily vote against a Dem who I believed was being quiet about their support for trans rights for the sake of eking out a win. 220
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026That argument depends on the assumption that there are no voters in "the middle" who might be up for grabs if Dem candidates were slightly less loud about trans advocacy. I want trans rights badly enough that I am not above smuggling a trans ally into office. I am *open* to that strategy. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026But that doesn't mean I won't test the arguments made by trans folk. Nobody has a monopoly on reasoning. And since I am *so* worried about psyops, I'm also alert the possibility of agitators posing online as trans people to float bad arguments. So the arguments actually matter to me. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026The fact is that I've been reserving judgment about Newsom precisely because I wanted to let trans folk make up their mind about him before I even considered him. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I got into this conversation precisely because I was listening to trans folk and trans allies discuss Newsom, and what I saw was a mischaracterization of his argument. I read the screenshots shared by emily, and then read emily's post, and in my judgement there was a disconnect, and I said so. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I take your point, but I think you go too far. I don't think my comments suppress conversation at all. I haven't convinced you I am not for Newsom. As I said, my interest in Newsom is (so far) strictly limited to how discussion about him originates. I've never praised him or supported him. Check! 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I think you characterized my position perfectly, except for the part about my motive (getting clicks). You are right about my concerns, you are right about how I'm testing-for-fit the discussion I see against my fear-theory about psyops. And I hope I've now explained my motives well enough. 110
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I should also add: I am very alert to the dangers of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is an exceptionally salient danger in America's 2-party system. I believe that is how we got Trump. So I am eager to see us not repeat the same mistake. I will err on the side of caution here. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I freely admit I may be off-base, but in my defense I have only raised the possibility twice. It's not my stock-in-trade. If you think it's not holding up, I won't press the issue -- it is entirely possible I am jumping at shadows. My goal is just to raise awareness so folks will be on guard. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026There may be clicks in fearmongering, but I'm not getting them, because I do not generally fear-monger. I concede that you're right about me being highly alert to the possibility of psyops used to sow discord among Dems. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026This is the bottom of the thread: bsky.app/profile/tomp... It's not long, and the answers to your questions are all there. Once you have caught up, I'm happy to continue the discussion if you think necessary. 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I don't support Newsom. I've never said I support him. I actually don't know if I support him. Indeed, I've heard some troubling things about his views on trans folk. All I've said is that I keep an eye out for the reasons offered in liberal circles for not supporting him. 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I think I beat you to the press here. I believe the response I've already written addresses everything you added in your second post. 200
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026The long discussion we're having is completely unrelated to Newsom. I believe what we're discussing is whether it was inappropriate for me to quote-post a user whose statements I was commenting on. You'll note that none of our back-and-forth mentions Newsom or trans rights. 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I dispute your mildly insulting description of my behavior as gym lech. You & I are discussing appropriate behavior in a public *forum*. The user we're talking about volunteered *public* statements which appeared in front of me. In your gym metaphor, they shouted a speech while wearing earplugs. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026As you said, a quote-post is not a conversation; no conversation was possible because that user forbids replies. So I did not take myself to be starting a *conversation*, I took myself to be offering *commentary* on someone else's statements, because that was an option the user left open to me. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Biden withdrew. Harris was the candidate, and it seemed like Dems were really fired-up about her. Remember that her campaign pulled in a billion dollars in a week? Or have I completely misunderstood what you're saying? 230
Reposted by tomprogersMalachite Tigerbunny @malachitetiger.bsky.social · 26/02/2026If we are seen conceding in advance to a fascist push to discriminate against a minority group, we lose a ton of our voter turnout to depression and despair, even if they still intend to vote. The answer is to focus on anti-discrimination messages and frame them in American Values terms. 1222
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026An excellent point! I'm very glad for having had this exchange. At the risk of digressing, the axle I and others are getting wrapped around is how to avoid alienating voters for whom trans-issues are low-salience, esp. since GOP media tries to make it high-salience for everyone. I like your plan. 010
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Indeed, the platform does not allow me to violate the bounds they set. So I say I did not fail to respect their boundaries. Also, it seems like you claim that person has the right to decide whether I am allowed to express an opinion about what they say. Is that accurate? Do you think it's fair? 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026That's inaccurate and unfair. They could have made all their posts visible only to followers if they wanted. Instead, they chose to speak openly but deny replies. They did not prevent quote-replies. I used an option they chose to leave open, to express my own opinion. Within the bounds they set. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026Isn't it true that we do need the votes of some people who don't want full trans rights? Isn't that one part of the story true, even if the rest of the story is a false dilemma or pre-surrendering or whatever? 300
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I agree. But the user in question has configured their posts to not allow replies. So it seems to me they pre-emptively shut down discussion. I would have simply replied if that had been an option, for what it's worth. What would you have advised me to do in that situation? 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I agree. But a person doesn't have to block me to avoid having a conversation with me. 100
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026This is funny, but I worry that prominent police are escalating the rhetoric they use to characterize the communities they are sworn to protect Like, what I want now isn't memes, it's reporting on how rank-and-file police reacted to Vallelong's statement Bad that folks are blithely bracing for war 000
tomprogers @tomprogers.bsky.social · 26/02/2026The user I was discussing is rebutting my argument (badly), but since they immediately blocked me, no debate is possible If you, gentle reader, look at my post history, I trust you will see that I am a reasonable interlocutor and an ally of trans & queer folk I will let it rest; judge for yourself 200
