I don’t think it’s wishful thinking so much as an analysis. It’s opinion, but I’m not really describing a hope for the future so much as my assessment on the present.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I assure you that no one who has ever met him has made that mistake.

Also, I feel sad for you. If you’re this unable to conceive of a person who knows something you don’t know I suspect you’re losing out on every opportunity for growth that passes your way.

When I read comments like this I wonder where you live and what your situation is.

Because I see signs of radical change all around me. It’s a long journey, and victory is uncertain. But I’m grateful that I don’t suffer from a lonely sense of doomed isolation.

I live in Oakland, California, and here I feel the longing for radical change in the air. I’m sorry that you don’t. Where do you live? Do you have a local political community?

It’s pay walled.

This is a really interesting question that people aren’t taking seriously.

It’s a huge mix. Because one of the key features of wealth and privilege is freedom: these people get to do more or less whatever they want.

For some, that’s whatever their parents do. Maybe they just want to make money and have martini lunches. But for a lot of them, they may just want to be a gaming YouTuber or a marine biologist, or a even run a social-justice focused non-profit.

As much as most of us resent unearned privilege, there’s no rule that says people who lucked into life are all stupid, mean, or incompetent. Many will become successful academics or devote themselves to politically righteous causes. The main problem is not what they do, but all the human potential among the unprivileged that is denied and squandered.

Many may also move between careers; etsy store one year, writer another. It’s very fluid.

It’s pay walled for me

Okay. That’s what I thought. So can you see where my confusion is coming from? Because I didn’t dismiss the utility of violence.

Did you possibly misread my comment? I described violence and non-violence as synergistic practices and ridiculed people who fail to understand that neither one can function independent of the other.

I mean no disrespect, but you’re perpetuating a myth.

Revolutionary action relies heavily on benign protest for cover and recruitment. Anyone who wants to see a radical overthrow of the government should be thrilled by the No Kings marches.

I have this conversation often with a very experienced, very radical anarchist frequently. He constantly laments the wastefulness and short-sightedness of radicals who shit on the people who cultivate the recruiting pool and create giant, peaceful crowds for the more extreme element to operate concealed within, because they’re too concerned with gatekeeping and value signaling to learn tactics.

Be radical. But also: understand that peaceful protest has a very important role to play.

Can you clarify what this actually means?

“Only violence works!” is stupid for exactly the same reason as “only non violence works!”

The two are synergistic and contextual, fool.

Wow, I’ll admit my guess was wrong: that’s a pretty clear endorsement of terrorism. I still don’t think she should be arrested.

Also I think it’s terrible journalism that they didn’t say specifically what she posted. That’s necessarily context. Thanks for sharing it.

I wouldn’t call him “die-hard”. He’s a neoliberal, but I think he’s clearly pretty conflicted.

He seems like a closet Berniecrat. He hasn’t said it, but I think he is probably a Warren voter.

I wish he was more socialist, but it’s clear that he hates Jefferies and Schumer, and has a sinking suspicion that Democrats are just the Washington Generals, but is still in the denial phase.

I listen to his podcast, and it’s mostly good. He’s still a lib, but he’s clearly working on it. It especially comes out when he’s taking with his producers, who he clearly hired to help him see his blind spots.

I like him.

This whole thing is Orwellian, but nothing more so imo than when stories like this report that someone was arrested for speech but doesn’t actually tell us what the offending speech was.

I think it’s pretty obvious that they know that they’ll get in trouble with the same people if they share the message. It’s quite sad.

I would second all of this, except for the suggestion to delete it. It’s a common question.

To reiterate, “biologically male” means very little scientifically. Sex in biology is far more complicated than most people understand.

It doesn’t matter, because when we discuss gender socially, we’re not describing reproductive capabilities. We don’t stop calling women women when they go through menopause, for instance.

If someone wants to debate it, say no thanks. It’s a waste of your time. If someone asks in good faith, you can explain it if you feel capable, or shrug and say you’re not really sure, but it doesn’t matter.

Yeah. I feel bad being to harsh when some tried to make something, but I thought this was going to be describing what the show would be like if it was written and produced now. Reacting to a 30 year old show as though it we’re made now is not only far less funny, it makes no sense. Yeah: TV production was very different 30 years ago. If it were made now, it wouldn’t be made that way.