you can get banned here

It takes special effort here, though.

And like it was always going to be like that anyways.

It’s not inevitable: some places are very laissez-faire.

“It’s not my opinion”

spends the next ten paragraphs expressing that opinion

Believe what you want. Contrary to what some profoundly dim people believe, it is possible to write about an opinion of others & explain it to someone who isn’t getting it.

Insisting that the problem isn’t wealth accumulation

That’s one theory that isn’t widely accepted. The voters who need to be won over don’t seem to accept it.

instead “corrupt” wealth that just happens to be accumulated

Not at all stated. Maybe you need to read without the filter: some people think it is possible to gain wealth legitimately & to prevent government from enabling illegitimate power.

You’re looking at illegitimate power gained through wealth but not any other means, which is shortsighted. We could make everyone poor & still let people gain illegitimate power: that wouldn’t satisfy anyone.

that’s what they’ve been running on

They haven’t. Neither oligarchs nor kings changes the overall message.

The part of their message that’s working for AOC & Sanders isn’t necessarily income inequality: they’re also raising a populist message against elites like Musk & his fellow billionaires, their exploitation of & disruption of & threats to government programs that serve & protect the people. The message works more broadly than you claim.

This is such a boomer take.

Right: Democrats need to try winning, but they better not try to actually win/beat the opposition at tactics they’ve proven win. So weak.

I just had a thought: are the Signal people MAGA?

I just had a thought: are the shoelace people MAGA?

Rubber, glue

Again, not my opinion.

Look around: who voted Trump into office? What thoughts voted him in? I doubt they’re anti-capitalist.

But [wealth] is a problem

Again, many don’t share your anti-capitalist sentiments. They’d say the problem is cronyism such as political connections & undue influence of moneyed special interests in politics. These are not the same.

They aren’t opposed to accumulation of wealth. They’re opposed to wealth gained through illegitimate means (eg, connections to win government bids, pass laws in their favor, capture regulatory agencies, reduce competition): economic government corruption, ie, crony capitalism.

They boil down to the same answer: get money out of politics (eliminate the dependence of campaigns on fundraising, reform lobbying) & break up the 2-party system.

If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue

Many think it’s a symptom: the problem is political access from wealth disadvantaging others from gaining wealth or crony capitalism.

“A presidential cabinet position shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder” is more direct without requiring buy-in to an idea many don’t accept. You focus on wealth rather than that no level of wealth should be able to buy that sort of thing.

one is addressing the actual issue

Questionable: the actual issue is illegitimate power as originally stated. Some people care more that it was gained at all: they shouldn’t have that illegitimate power through wealth or any other means (personal connections, favors, etc). They want the cronyism removed from capitalism.

so nerfing your messaging and platform

It’s not: it’s framing the same goals in language other voters will accept. Neither oligarch nor kings implies capitalism as you stated.

Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed

Until Democrats build in other states the kind of establishment they have in California & New York, Democrats in other states will need to adapt their message to their voters.

Frankly, adapting a message isn’t enough. They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Rogan, probably pump out their own viral bullshit, answer Republican troll farms with Democrat troll farms.

screenshot of text
no link to source or alt text
people with accessibility needs can’t read this
no one can instantly verify it

It’d be cool if the post linked to source & and maybe had/was text.

Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?

Source:

Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own beliefs (your emotions).

And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck??

It’s not about me. It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem. They may think more about power & corruption.

I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well

I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.

they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence

That’s cool for your family.

It’s a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich. There’s an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.

Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people. Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.

Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.

I think we’re both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn’t imply capitalism, either.

The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn’t parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren’t clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.

Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.

Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn’t really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow “earned it more” than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn’t irrational, either.

While I’m fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.

b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is

They’re not? Have you looked around?

One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.

I’m sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.

“King” isn’t even related to capitalism.

People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.

Link to source, because screenshots of screenshots are inaccessible trash.

Look at this guy go past the headlines & read the article: that’s heresy around here.

When will they start selling armbands?

The capacity of humanity to act against themselves is sometimes a wonder.

commentors are missing is that’s not enough.

They may get that. Commenters are more often not the Democrats (their leadership, strategists, or establishment), they may get that, and they may think their leftist peers who couldn’t work out 2 + 2 = 4 are a problem, too. Figuring their chances of reaching the DNC on here are remote, they may engage the last problem not as part of some Democrat strategy (which they aren’t a part of), but because they’re a regular human trying to reach their fellow, idiot human.

Addressing human failings may be a futile waste of energy but ignoring them entirely isn’t doing much good. Some think change begins by holding ourselves accountable where we fail. The least we can do is try to be right. None of this is part of a party strategy: it’s humans trying to get humans to human better.

You’re right it’s not enough, and those with power to do enough aren’t. The problems with society & political culture are manifold.

optics are more import

It’s more than optics: actions, delivering more effective government that noticeably eases our lives, reinvigorating local organizations & alliances that draw power to the party. A problem with Democrats may be an excessive concern with appearances & blanding their message so much to appease everyone (all purists) that it moves no one.

A lot more people than the DNC are blaming people for not voting Democrat & sticking us with this shithole administration. It was a huge no-brainer.

former director of the American Institute of Physics

arXiv, which physicists setup nearly as far back as the web, would have a word with this guy. The web was invented at CERN practically so physicists could share research documents.

Well done: that’s the way you defend a thesis. Sources & supported reason. Not whatever nonsense you were doing.

I upvoted your comment, too.

It’s a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature’s domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.

The previous comment stands: it’s an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.

A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol.

News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?

a Nature article

Paywalled & also in the news section?

It’s possible despite lax biosafety, they didn’t leak the virus & didn’t have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that’s considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.

I don’t know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?

I’m linking to supporting references, and you’re not, so 🤷.