Not. Wrong.
Exploring the edge of science, space, and imagination. đđ§ Caught in the loop between science and storytelling. đâš
44 followers 36 following 80 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Not. Wrong.
Iâm convinced he took a bad fall, the makeup only does so much so theyâre keeping him super far from the cameras. Also, did anyone else notice how they avoid his right side in the pics that came out, and he had someone walking with him (same side as his bruised hand)?
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
Good lord ask him where the Halloween party is.
I'm increasingly convinced he took a fall and they're trying to hide it. The makeup can only do so much but from a distance it's easier to hide.
I'm guessing he took a fall and they're trying to hide it.
I still canât believe this alone didnât end his run.
All I can think is that itâs worked at some point. đ€Šââïž
Lots of love and support from CA!
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
Spirit Halloween is the reaper of failed enterprise.
Look at this cat... đ đ
This đđ
đ„
Mark needs therapy...
I snorted. Well done!
If Cracker Barrel was âtoo woke,â then I guess biscuits and gravy are radical now.
While the California part of me is like "Yay! Ty Gov!" The L.A. driver in me is like, "Great...more traffic on the 10." đ
4/ Zoomed out, what worries me most, perhaps now more than ever, is the one-issue conundrum of votingâpurity tests that blur the line between an imperfect ally and a sworn adversary. If we canât tell the difference, we risk isolating potential partners and leaving power to those openly hostile.
3/ Touching upon your last point, youâll hear no argument from me on the social/political frontâsaid attacks on the trans community, on this point or any, range from the laughably ignorant to evil and inhumane. It's something of a trigger point for me.
2/ For me, the issue isnât morality in sports but the feeding frenzy around scholarships and the money tied to higher ed. For athletes from lesser means, those stakes are very real. CIFâs âtwo 1st placesâ approach feels less like a moral fight than an ethical one about material consequences.
1/ Youâre absolutely rightâthe âsportsâ fight isnât about athletics, itâs about setting a precedent to deny recognition elsewhere. Trans athletes were already under science-based rules; the culture war just reframes fairness as exclusion. I completely agree with you here.
True â leagues already had rules for trans athletes before the culture war. If science hasnât changed, then why did the perception of âfairnessâ shift? Maybe the issue isnât the rules themselves, but how politics reframed them.
2/ Sports already use âasterisksâ (eg weight classes, age brackets, hormone tests). The real issue isnât rules vs. no rules, but whether those rules are science-based, consistent, and fair â or something else dressed up as policy.
1/ I hear the concern â nobody wants trans athletes treated as if their achievements come with an asterisk. But can I ask: what would a system rooted in both fairness and inclusion look like in practice?
The hat! I'm dead đ” đ I love it. Needed this today. #Newsom #NewsomWasRightAboutEverything store.gavinnewsom.com/newsom-was-r...
If asking questions feels like betrayal, how does that help the very communities we both care about? Iâll leave it hereâthanks for your time.
If sports fans agreed on rules, half of ESPNâs programming would vanish overnight.
I think this crossed into assumptions instead of evidence. Since that helps nobody, Iâll leave it here â happy to pick it up again if receipts are on the table. Be well.
2/ If youâre open to an actual conversation, Iâm here to listen and engage with evidence. If not, Iâll thank you for your time and step aside. No point in making this about scoring points when peopleâs lives are at stake. Be well.
1/ I hear your frustration. But can I askâhow is accusing me of bias or bad faith different from the very dynamic youâre critiquing? Lobbing assumptions doesnât help either of us.
4/ TL;DR: Weâre all on the same side of protecting trans rights. Newsom raised fairness concerns, but backed CIFâs inclusive policies. Being an âuncomfortable allyâ beats handing the field to sworn adversaries. âïž
3/ That said, Newsomâs commentsâsaying itâs an âissue of fairnessââdonât erase how he also supported the CIFâs inclusive pilot, even under pressure from Trump withholding federal funds. (See Politico coverage.)
2/ Overall, I think we agreeâprotecting trans inclusion in sports is a shared value. No one wants athletes excluded unfairly, end of story.
1/ So, a few things here.... Itâs a Substack article, so Iâd be cautious about treating it as authoritative. Serano makes strong pointsâespecially on the history of trans inclusion and citing scientific studies. My take: it leans more on persuasive framing than peer-reviewed evidence.
The vaccine denial comparison is curiousâcan you clarify what you mean by that? Also, could you share the studies youâre referencing? Iâm trying to understand how one comment on athletics translates into wholesale bigotry.
Thatâs a strong claimâhow exactly is CIFâs policy ânot fair or inclusiveâ? Which part of the decision are you pointing to? From what Iâve read, CIF weighed fairness, participation, and inclusion in its framework. If you see something different, Iâd like to hear specifics.
Not saying I do or don't believe you, but can you point me to where Newsom actually said â25 is too young to transitionâ? I follow this stuff closely and havenât seen that. Receipts > paraphrases. If the critique is valid, it deserves solid evidence. Can you share it?
Claiming Newsom "completely aligns" with anti-trans views is overreachâhe called sports fairness into question in one moment, but Californiaâs policy (with CIFâs fair, inclusive approach) remains grounded in equity, not blanket hostility.
Certifiable
This is a warning to us, otherwise we will lose the future of our children.
đ€
California FTW!
What's that saying? broken clock... twice a day... Yeah, I know. it's been a week.
Yep yep!
Then I stand corrected.
I'm beyond words right now with this.
2/ Agreed. Iâm 100% proâsingle payer, and merging universal healthcare with that veto risks blurring two separate critiques. So, isnât there a difference between âfailed to deliverâ and âactively hostileâ?
1/ If the claim is âhe supports killing trans people,â what specific policy shows that? Are you referring to the veto on the custody bill about parental affirmation? That was framed as a separation-of-powers issueânot a denial of healthcare, right?
2/ If the claim is âpraising and supporting,â then receipts matter. Otherwise we risk hyperbole, which weakens real critiques. Can you point to the exact examples?
1/ I follow the podcastâyou might be referring to the part on trans athletes competing? If so, is that what you mean? If not, please correct me. Because âsmiling and noddingâ â âgleeful agreement.â Do you have specific quotes where he endorses anti-trans positions, or is it more about tone?
4/ Personally, I find indifference more hostile than open disagreement. At least dialogue exposes ideas to scrutiny. If the choice is between engagingâeven adversariesâor ignoring until they dominate the narrative, which path do you think serves trans folks better?
3/ As for the podcast: what would you do differently? Refuse to talk? Build bunkers where people only hear themselves? Thatâs one tactic, but itâs also how we got hereâindifference and silence filling the space while bad actors get louder.
2/ Because in the same year he signed laws expanding actual access: CA became a sanctuary for trans youth fleeing bans, and Medi-Cal expanded gender-affirming care. So does one veto = anti-trans? Or is it more complicated?
1/ Re: the veto â are we talking about the 2023 bill that would have required CA judges to consider parental affirmation of gender identity in custody cases? Newsom argued it could set a precedent for politicizing family law. Do we think thatâs the same as âdenying healthcareâ?
I feel like "Don't Poke the Bear" needs to be the new state slogan.
2/ If âfailure to deliver everythingâ = âactively hostile,â then wouldnât every governor be guilty? Or is that a different critique? Genuine Q. Moral hygiene matters: evidence > slogans. TL;DR: Critique with receipts, not hyperbole.
1/ I hear the passion, but letâs be clear: what specific policy shows Newsom âsupports killing trans peopleâ? If the record also includes laws expanding protections (CA sanctuary for trans youth, protections against forced outing, etc.), how does that fit the claim?
3/ Are we judging professed beliefs or measurable outcomes? If outcomes, letâs compare records. Iâll answer your questions if youâll answer these.
1/ âSounds like you donât believeâŠâ = assumption. Letâs ground it. What specific policy or quote leads you there? (Cite it; Iâll read it.) 2/ What would falsify your claim? If contrary evidence exists, would you update? If not, this isnât about factsâitâs about vibes.
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
Sounds like single-issue vibes tbh.
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
www.reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
reddit.com/r/DarkNewsom/
Keep on keeping on, Gov. We have your back!
