Alt Text
Show parent replies
So much going on here. expecting politicians to not deviate for power or capital, but I mean at least they’re showing their dissatisfaction with that. Hilarious that the response to that is to say “get back in line” lol
Even if being a monolith was something to be desired, how do you think change occurs? Everyone is just supposed to agree, until they all simultaneously agree on a new thing? Or is it just that the org shouldn’t take a stance but individuals can? Why wouldn’t the same criticism
Apply to individual deviation? So weird gross
people are talking about it in the ydsa discord, and i wanna react bc i think this is really interesting
i feel like this is exactly the type of utilitarian calculus that leads people to being moderates in an electoral context principles thrown to the wayside for the elusive and corruptive influence of net positive marginal benefit
i understand their point and think it has plenty of validity, but like this is essentially an optical argument. and the issue is about Palestinians - do their status as poc not count?? lol. like i feel like this is an argument for communicating it in a way that specifically
addresses the fact that Bowman is black, and that they are committed to to endorsing black voices that consistently fight on the side of oppressed people or whatever rhetoric you wanna put on it
this is an interesting point - i think this criticism wouldn't apply if they weren't calling for an action to happen about the endorsement? idk its kind of weird. like i dont know how to conceptualize "representatives" in a way that makes sense
like is bowman really apart of that chapter's community? nah not really even if he was at one point, now they have a completely different set of interests. and like if they are a representative for DSA, why should those being "represented" not have a say, regardless of location
also circling back to the point about bowman being black and alienating poc, i feel like at least in some minor way its pretty fucked to invoke this social justicey language at the expense of maintaining a stance on the issue
idk this is a little weird bc i struggle with a lot of the assumptions theyre operating with, but its interesting nonetheless
? he does "a lot" but doesn't vote no on that thing? lol i understand there are utilitarian ramifactions and blah blah but thats the issue lmao
lol wtf is this interaction - i feel like andrew gives decent enough of a take from within the framework. the reply is like "ok but if we sell out our values we can appeal to more people" yeah????
dude am i just too white wtf. like maybe im just coping, but your statements can be descriptively true but super shit prescriptively.