Want to say something about the topic I'm actually discussing?

You're engaging in class reductionism. The main reason is of course her socialist identity. But, to ignore that she is a black woman from the south would be like ignoring the attacks on Abdul for being Muslim (from both parties).

A black socialist woman is significantly more dangerous to the Democratic party as their core voting base in the south is comprised of lifelong democratic black voters that they are trying to distance from DSA. "DSA is all privileged white people" you hear both parties regurgitate. They clearly see her as threat that will push a large part of their base further left.

It's ok to analyze incentives through intersectionality. The Democratic party establishment is. They are just using it to keep power. Don't ignore it because the main reason they are against her is because of her socialist policies. That doesn't mean there isn't multi things that are a threat from her, because of her identity, that introduce contradictions to their existing narratives.

Edit: This is not to say that black voters aren't extremely more left than the average American on average, they are. But, a large portion of the base of the democratic party, those that vote in primaries, are more likely to vote for the parties pick than an insurgent DSA candidate. A black woman from DSA contradictions their entire narrative. Ignoring that is ignoring how they are attempting to use identity politics to attack socialism.

I mean, that can be your interpretation of the post. But "rules" can mean multiple things here. And they are not independent either. Expectations of social behavior are shaped by economic class structures. It's not some independent and unrelated thing even if your interpreting "rules" is purely a in social behavioral way.

I don't interpret the post as referring to small talk or sensory issues. These are things I struggle with; but I don't see them as "rules" that don't make sense. I see them as expectations that I personally struggle with. But they aren't unreasonable to me. I see them as social or environment constructions that are not made for people with my type of mind. But, I can understand why people enjoy small talk. I can understand why Costco is lit up like a warehouse with annoying bright lights. I don't at all see these as "illogical rules". I understand why they exist in a world made for normies.

The "rules" that I see as illogical are ones that every type of working class person suffers from; but, are especially obvious and difficult for someone with my (our) type of brain.

Its obviously not the only factor. But the alienation caused by our economic structures is a major struggle for those of us that form social relationships primarily through the connection we have through sharing the products of our labor. That connection is entirely abstracted and removed by the "rules" of modern modes of production. The relationship to our labor is not to the production of goods and services, but to a faceless and emotionless number through our wage. It's why I spend my free time making things for others (leathercraft mostly). I struggle with making social connections as normies do; but connect with others through the products of my labor or shared interest of it. It's a fundamental part of how I form relationships and is entirely non existent in most jobs today.

And this is not the only social behavior that is restricted and enforced by the capitalist mode of production. It goes further when you realize that capitalism is the current means of enforcing patriarchy within a society.

Id recommend reading on topics of family and social structures and how expectations are enforced through the economic class structures and how they are used to enforce patriarchy.

Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism is a good book to read. But this isn't a "new" idea. Marx wrote extensively on the topic in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

There is a reason its called Socialism. Social expectations and class structures are interwoven.

The polling in Florida was not 13 points. And there was significant evidence that a cash infusion from Bernie had helped to close the gap even further.

This isn't a "in hindsight" kind of thing. The Democratic party had plenty of opportunities and evidence to show that funding was leading to a winnable race. Even more so than places that they DID fund and ended up losing/winning as well.

I'm sorry. But you were not paying attention to Florida and Nixon if you think there wasn't a deliberate bias against a black woman and DSA member. They abandoned her because they did not want her to win. They did not want an example of a leftist winning in the South. They want to continue to run establishment figures that are against Medicare for all; like Jon Ossof. Don't fall for their lies.

They lose either way though. Because she nearly won and didn't get their support. Now we're gonna run her again in two years and by then we hopefully won't need any of their funds.

The great thing about this election is that it was a special election. She can literally run again in two years since the term ends. And she absolutely should. As more DSA politicians gain national popularity like Mamdani and Abdul (not DSA but is very much associated with them), she will have a lot more support. And there are a lot of House members that can promote DSA from DC.

The next two years are about building the power and funding of the DSA so the Democratic party is less of an issue and a dependence. And we need AoC for that funding and national popularity. The DSA needs to understand that opportunity. That we need to be within the foundation of her campaign. So when the time comes for 2028 these candidates are further less dependent on establishment and a frontrunner for the presidential primary has DSA as its foundation. And DSA isn't chasing her and pressuring policy from the outside.

We want less money and influence coming from the Democratic Establishment and more coming from building an independent insurgency that operates within the Democratic party until we are either forced out, or are popular enough that the "default to Democrat" vote of a lot of the country is no longer a massive hurdle.

I don't think we will be able to run as a separate party by 2028. But, we (DSA) need to start operating like we are.

Not knowledgeable on a topic? Leave it to the people you trust most.

That's not what people do.

But if certain policies are interesting it should be possible to intervene at will.

No, it shouldn't. I can find vaccines "interesting". I shouldn't have a say in whether a new vaccine is safe or not. That decision should be left to experts in that field.

I don't lack imagination. You are lacking any understanding of how policy is created and how governments function.

It's such a stupid idea that I've heard this "app based direct democracy" multiple times from the dumbest fucking guys at bars. This is the equivalent of "we just need crypto" solution to problems with banking a capital. Ironically, if we had this type of direct democracy, you'd have the most popular policies be more and more dumb "easy to understand" solutions like the one you are presenting.

Far too optimistic. The election is a step in the right direction. But, the majority of the democratic party is still trying to return to a pre Trump era. They have no intention of actually holding this admin accountable. No more than Obama did for Bush. Not beyond what is beneficial to them without destroying the structures that protect them too.

Washington doesn't bother hiding it's crimes. That like saying that the Mafia boss hide his crimes from his family. It is a mutually beneficial relationship that will never allow full truths to be told. And will never let the criminals be prosecuted without being made "whole".

We have some real good people infiltrating it. Don't get me wrong. But, it is a step in understanding the larger problem for all. It is far from just the one side "hiding their crimes". It is a system that allows them not to even have to hide them in the first place.

The people that "made the rules" knew exactly what they were doing. It's silly to think otherwise. The intentions and goals just did not align with the masses. The system is working perfectly for their children and their children's children.

Don't assume stupidity is the answer for a system more easily understood by maintaining power and material benefit for a specific class. All that does is give you a sense of a intellectual victory that is meaningless in obtaining, what you really need, a material one.

Yes. It's the exact contradiction that needs to be addressed. We are aware. It's a step. Not a destination.

I swear articles like this are written to just suck all the momentum out of a movement.

Sounds like an awful idea. Direct democracy on specific policies is a fucking nightmare. I want actually informed and knowledgeable people making decisions on shit.

Yeah, sounds great in theory if everyone was as autistic as I am. But I don't want policies on healthcare and vaccines being decided on by the average uninformed click of some average idiot with a smartphone app.

"Ask the audience" works until you have a question that requires actual expertise.

I get your frustration with capital corruption and influence. But you're not thinking this through.

Thanks. I actually didn't know that. I'm too lazy to change instances; have my issues with .ml as an instance. But, I avoid a lot of stupid conversations with people that start with "you would say that as a .ml". So, it has it has its positives and negatives.

Republicans are an afront to God. So I'll exploit their economic anxieties to win in red states and give everyone Medicare for all, pay reparations to Iran, and end all aid and support to Israel.

Maoist Larpers: "No! Electoral politics are bad!"

IRGC: "Vote blue mother fuckers"

We aren't there yet. But anyone that calls them a Maoist that doesn't want the imperial power of the empire reigned in, is not a serious person.

And anyone that doesn't exploit and understand the economic anxieties of the masses, to obtain political power, to stop support for a fascist admin, well, they are also not a serious person.