Have looked into this more and nobody has said much of anything. And yet somehow two noncommital sentences from her and Mamdani have turned into a leftwing smear frenzy that would rival any high-school drama.

To my knowledge, Ossé’s entry wasn’t planned and he had previously indicated he wasn’t running or wouldn’t run without DSA endorsement. And even now his statement is he’s “exploring” a run. And AOC/Mamdani’s statements were basically “I don’t think it’s a good idea for him to run” which is a neutral phrasing covering any reason (good or bad), and certainly isn’t an endorsement of Jeffries if the primary were to actually happen.

But if you were to read axios [parent company donated at 70% republicans/30% to establishment dems] or vox [owned by Jay Penske, son of MAGA mega-donor Roger Penske, with ties to Saudi money and Trump’s Whitehouse] this is a show a fealty to the corrupt Democrat cabal and requires unrest and dissent on the left.

Good lord people, why bother with this obvious bait…

Lmao do you have nothing better to do? This is worse than streamer drama. Nothing in that milquetoast clip has anything to do with policy, a change in stance on any issue, or even an endorsement.

But he’s now besmirched because he’s not in a blood pact with a council member most of America has never heard of? A fellow [Big Tent] DSA member who has only been paying dues for a handful of months?

If he’s changing stance on Gaza, publicly or in policy, I’m concerned and want to hear about it. If he’s stumping for establishment Dems and scaring his constituents away from a challenger, I want to hear about it.

If he’s disagreeing with the concept of a person running, who hasn’t put out any platform that I’ve heard of, before the race has even started… don’t bother me.

• Maybe this candidate has a great platform, maybe his platform will be garbage.
• Maybe he has a good platform but Mamdani genuinely thinks he doesn’t have the political chops for the big leagues.
• Maybe Mamdani is focused on the political landscape he has to navigate and simply doesn’t want a major player disrupted without good reason.
• Maybe Jeffries is internally unpopular and could serve as a lighting rod for building a voting bloc from current officials.
• Maybe he thinks Jeffries is too big a fish and that there are other candidates he’d like to primary.

I don’t know unless he comes out and specifies and it doesn’t benefit me to speculate on anything so intangible.

I’ll let the new campaign run it’s course, I’ll listen to the new platform, and I’ll judge what happens when it happens. Maybe this will fracture the DSA between left and farther left, but I wouldn’t care because both sides are light-years better than our current politicians.

• 2 minute story is entirely unverifiable hearsay
• doesn’t explain the purpose of that meeting, why the specific endorsers are here (other than they’re Jewish for some reason?), doesn’t even name a specific meeting date
• vague paraphrasing of Adler’s comments on anti-zionism
• even more vague paraphrasing of the reply. no indication of it’s phrasing, it’s tone, it’s content, it’s length, the speaker, etc…

“I CAN TELL YOU FOR A FACT HE’S IN THOSE ROOMS TELLING THEM TO STOP”

Uh… Can you? Give me a quote, give me a source, give me context, give me anything… If you can’t do the bare minimum then why are we even sharing this clip/anecdote?

The solution is to aggressively regulate the platforms, not the people posting. Saying dumb shit like “drink horse dewormer” is free speech; providing a platform to push that awful advice to millions of people is not a protected right.

I’ll take a crack at it:

• It’s a massive privacy/surveillance concern. Look at the issues that come with doorbell cams and now multiply the number of cameras and scatter them all over
• It’s another platform for mega corporations to track and sell data to advertisers or any malicious actors, but at an entirely new intrusive level. They no longer have to approximate what’s getting your attention when they literally know what has your attention. Good luck anonymizing or hiding your usage when you can’t spoof the real world in front of you.
• It’s unnecessary e-waste, at best providing the exact same functionality you’d get from your phone with the added benefit of… not reaching into your pocket? You still need a free hand to use it…
• It’s a distraction in a way that other tech can’t touch. Pedestrians/drivers getting notifications shoved directly into their eyes won’t end well.
• It probably has all the same inherent problems as previous generations of smart glasses. Primarily: your eyes aren’t designed for extended/repeated focus on an image less than an inch from your face and at the edge of your vision

I mean I can think of one thing: tell the truth one day and a bald faced lie the next. Repeatedly propping up a regime with one hand and denigrating it with the other causes deep fractures that you can’t get from a simple one sided attack.

If you’re old enough to remember the internet as it was 15-20 years ago it’s fairly obvious. Even in the early days of social media a narrative wouldn’t spread a fraction as quickly or with as much explosive rhetoric. In a week after a major incident we might get 4 or 5 waves of conflicting or compounding narratives.

You can imagine our social discourse as a massive pool of competing ideas going back and forth; a large disruption might cause a sizable wave. You’d expect rebound waves (opposing ideas) from the opposite fringe to naturally counteract and disperse the original and each other, keeping the water choppy but level.

With a larger network (ie: Twitter in 2025 vs Twitter in 2008) you’d expect to see more inertia and more stability, the fact that we don’t is damning. Forcing the mass uniformity of rhetoric that we see these days (massive waves sweeping across hundreds of millions on multiple platforms) is not something that could be orchestrated by anything less than state actors. It takes the planning and coordination of both the initial narratives and responses.

1. Apparently we can’t disagree if your comments are anything to go by, regardless of how much reading we do
2. Calling your highly touted T h e o r y a science is laughable. It’s descriptive philosophy and as such has no predictive/prescriptive value

There’s a reason you have to call it theory and why that theory gets bent like a pretzel whenever something runs counter to it. It must be correct because at its core it’s theology for the disillusioned. The material conditions weren’t right bro, trust me bro, just one more vanguard party bro, we’re gonna be stateless I promise, just need a little more critical support for these fascists bro…

If you poll on actual policy and don’t couch it in ideology or partisan framing, the vast majority of people agree. From basic economic policy to abortion access to housing regulations to climate action, ~70% or more are in agreement. And keep in mind this is with a constant media barrage promoting division.

In a better system we wouldn’t be bound to just D and R. It would be something to more accurately represent the nuances of the voter (probably an evolution of the coalition systems in newer Democracies). You end up those popular policies as the core of governance with the outer fringe policies on the political curve getting less sway. Compromise is a part of any system of governance except maybe despotism.

But the Constitution did set the country up for states to be like their own nations

Yes and when the Constitution was written they were basically 13 semi-sovereign states who were such nascent politicians that they couldn’t imagine a government without a king (just renamed president). The constitution should have been entirely reworked after the Civil War and probably needed more major revisions as the population, topography and demographics of the nation changed.

The state of our federal administration is fucked because the constitution is fundamentally flawed. If it was written for a modern world, the federal government would have the foundation to weather this assault and possibly the teeth to nip the rot in the bud. At the very least it wouldn’t be so rigid that people like you feel the need to cling to a centuries old piece of paper as infallible.

Using a maliciously broken system as self evidence for its abandonment and prohibition is absurd. There’s nothing inherently more oppressive or evil about a federal government than a smaller state government. If you’re not considering a restructure to address the root flaws then you’re just whinging over which boot you’d prefer to kick in your door.

Sounds like a good idea until you have a soup of 50 sovereign states who still don’t agree but are now completely wide open to international power plays and local violence. The people only have “different visions” because the rich are best served by having us divided. Caving to that pressure only makes us more vulnerable to their neo-feudal ambitions.

It’s absolutely possible to have a strong federal government without getting into the shit show we have today. The problem is when federal authority gets distilled into a handful of people and detached from popular representation or recall.

“Getting the feds to back off” has been the laughable fig leaf that the right has used to dismantle the normal operation of our government for 200+ years. Now you’re buying into balkanization when they’ve enacted their coup?

We don’t need more limits on the only structure that can mitigate/navigate climate collapse; the only thread that historically has opposed the oppression of the deep south; the only speedbump that could even moderately oppose the hegemony of the ultra wealthy.

The US constitution was designed to entrench the power of the white landowner class, and that has remained true in spite of the consistent creep of federal authority. It’s just not possible to mount any opposition to the massive weight of their capital in any other way.

So no, don’t restrict the Fed’s authority to do any of that. Just give us the tools to get real, fair representation and hold our representatives accountable. Every other needed reform and restructuring could be done with no problem once we have that.

Got a mirror? I assume that was the close shot and not the far video (tho even in the far video you can see it pretty clearly). From the positioning and the amount of blood and how fast he dropped my money is it hit a carotid artery and he’s almost certainly dead.

Edit: for everyone still wondering, save yourself a nsfl watch of the front row video, he’s dead for sure

[Apologies in advance for the essay]

I think your description is utopian because it distills civilization (and by extension the universe) into a stable system in an ideal balance. Any society has to exist within its material constraints and those limits invariably devolve and shift through entropy.

Socialism (and basically all early-modern political theory) was born in a time of incredible scientific advancement. It has an implicit axiom that all factors can be solved and accounted for, and by doing so we can asymptomatically approach a perfect society.

But we know a lot more now and can prove that’s just not possible. Our physical reality imposes instability on society whether we like it or not. An unstoppable, aggressive blight could destroy the agricultural output of an entire continent. Suddenly it’s just not possible to give to each according to their need and only the most insular and asocial pockets of civilization survive.

There’s no amount of creativity or human goodwill that can weather the unfathomable forces beyond our control. I mean, what happens to our carefully crafted socialist society when the earth’s magnetic poles flip. Or when the moon finally drifts away from the earth and permanently ends our seasonal stability. Or when the sun explodes or we deplete Earth’s finite resources or etc…

I don’t say all of this to be unreasonably pessimistic or nihilistic, but to point out that these ideological theories are fundamentally unsound. Our current world does desperately need these socialist policies, but dogmatic adherence to them as indelible rules is counter productive.

In my opinion we should focus on instilling basic guiding principles and solve our problems in any way that satisfies as many as possible. Some off the top of my head, in a rough ordering:

• Maximize political engagement and representation
• Minimize our ecological footprint and don’t develop an over reliance on any resource
• Preserve and extend our scientific knowledge
• Delegate labor and distribute resources as equitably as possible
• Limit restrictions on personal freedom

You’ll almost never be able to satisfy every principle, but establishing something like that as a baseline allows for good faith discussion and decision-making without the need to villify your opposition.

Weird way to “listen” by suppressing their voices. Zero Covid was the “right call” in a narrow lens of limiting direct disease transmission, but it was completely untenable as a true long term strategy and had no foresight.

The protests weren’t due to solely to the restrictions on personal freedom, it was also the total lack of sane administration and fallback plans. The enforcement, quarantine logistics and vaccine rollout were entirely scattershot. The government had no realistic approach to the problem beyond rigid policing.

When their authority to enforce the policy was stretched to its limits they did an about face and pretended the problem didn’t exist, leaving their vulnerable populations in the lurch with no offramp. The core problem of inept administration was completely unaddressed. I wouldn’t give them credit for “listening to the protesters” any more than I would give Tsar Nicholas credit for listening to his striking workers.

COVID lockdowns when minor protests broke out

“Solve” is an interesting verb for suppression of legitimate mass discontent at being physically locked into their apartments. That “solution” worked so well for those “minor protests” that they decided to do a 180° turn from the Zero Covid policy to no restrictions overnight.

Truly a bastion of free speech, except for any real discontent is labeled capitalist subterfuge so we’ll just disregard that.

I have! Have you been on it in China? Have you contrasted the foreign feed to a citizen’s? Have you seen the coordinated response to genuine spreading political discontent vs mundane petty scandals? Because it kinda sounds like you haven’t if you think that’s a killer response.

Never claimed to be any kind of China expert but it’s absurd to claim “much more open discourse” if you’ve spent any appreciable amount of time in the countries being discussed. You can literally just walk + talk in public and see the difference.

Like all these asserted freedoms it just magically happens better and free’er but you definitely can’t verify it because “media”. The open political discourse I see and hear in major EU/US cities pales in comparison to the uh… hidden… open discourse in T1/T2 Chinese cities? Definitely heard some first/second hand political discourse but it was never, ever, ever a public forum.

By all means, give me evidence to the contrary. Maybe I just keep catching China with a bad case of the Mondays. Have you been? Can you point to any discourse on domestic politics? Where is the asserted diversity of opinion on hotbed issues? Can you show me any strong opposition to the party line on a public stage?