That’s a hell of a lot of words that aren’t either “of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate” or “no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don’t nominate someone sufficiently progressive.”

If you mean the latter, say it. If you don’t, then say that, too.

So, you are in favor of “my guy or the Nazi” voting? I didn’t hear a “no”, there.

It isn’t “loser talk” to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the “both sides” rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.

Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only “not as bad”, or you are doing more harm than good.

What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he’s the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she’s the best choice then?

Primary-only voting doesn’t force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.

And if that isn’t what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for “least bad”, then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?

I don’t know how you square the circle of asserting that ‘both sided are bad’ is what got us here and still echoing “less bad” to buttress their thesis

Waiting for the left to be “good” instead of “less bad” is what makes “both sides are bad” such an effective demobilization tactic.

Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.

Then explain to me how the good guy is not the “least bad” choice.

Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying “both sides are bad” while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.

Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.

If you’re dealing with relationship advice, the differences from one person to another are substantially greater than those which separate men and women. Even if we ignore transgender and same-gender relationships, or how a huge portion of western society’s gender differences are just toxic sexism.

“How can I (M) suggest $FETISH to partner (F)” is essentially the same question if you swap the genders, make them both F, or make them both M. And to the extent that they aren’t, many of the answers and clarifying questions will be.

Who I am and who did the study should be irrelevant. An idea should stand on its own or not.

Or do you really want to be the sort of person who dismissed Einstein as “Jewish science” or who told the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible? (Or, worse, the sort of person who pays for a scam “bomb sniffer” after a terrorist attack, or assumes Donald must be smart because he’s rich?)

It’s perfectly fine to answer a question with “I don’t know,” especially when your other option is “no, the emperor must have clothes on.”

Since you read it, and don’t reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I’m not sure reading it would be worth my time. I’d love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.

How did she categorize a movement as “non-violent” or not?

It shouldn’t be. Asserting that “no non-violent protests have failed” ignores an obvious null hypothesis.

Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements “violent” to justify what the state did to them.

Thats not really what happens, unless you’re so toxic that old-twitter would actually ban you.

Bsky has a “nuclear block”, that essentially removes you and the target from even existing on the version of the site each other see. If you’re ok with just talking to folk who are on your side of a “no, shutup” line, like “trans women are women” or “trans is a mental disorder” you’ll be fine.

The issue is that a bunch of folk who abscribe to the second apparently just want to troll the first, so they get blocked by their targets, have no fun, and then complain to reporters still on twitter.

Ignoring Bernie for the moment, “against the working class” is usually a dogwhistle for “poor whites have racial nervousness and i want to exacerbate that for political gain.”. You wont find real examples because, generally, professional democrats arent against anyone. (even nazis, apparently.)

Bernie’s specific crtique was a slightly tone-deaf critique that the dems were largely silent on the economic nervousness of the working class, and instead spend political capital fighting for racial and gender equality. Since the white male working class is not oppressed by race or gender, or in a position to really oppress anyone, they often feel unrepresented.

I think you’re underestimating how deep the pay gap goes.

“women’s work” jobs are so consistently paid less that mere career choice is a huge part of the pay gap.