That’s really why I was hoping to hear from someone involved in planning. If this event is permitted, will have infrastructure constructed (ie a stage, gates, etc) and has a public schedule of speakers, etc along the lines of the Women’s March in 2017, the March for our Lives in 2018, or the various Marches for Science, then I think it’s much less likely to see a violent crackdown by the administration.

On the other hand, if this is more along the lines of the airport protests against the travel ban in 2017, the anti-Iraq War protests in 2003, or the 2020 uprising protests, which were all MUCH less structured and had a much more confrontational vibe to them, then I think there’s a greater likelihood of a violent crackdown.

Thanks! I try to be one, although I’m sure there’s plenty I could improve upon.

My older (5 yo) has already attended a couple of protests at Tesla dealerships over the past couple months. When she was less than 1 year old she went along with my wife and I aas we did mutual aid supply drops at various events during the 2020 uprising.

The younger (3 yo) hasn’t been to a protest yet. This will be her first. Suffice it to say, though, this will not be the last either one attends.

I’m not worried about them getting lost. I know how to keep track of my kids in a large crowd pretty well. And my wife will be there, too. We’ll have child carrying harnesses so the kids can ride strapped onto our back if they don’t want to walk anymore. My concern is about the intended atmosphere of the event.

Also, as someone who never saw my parents engage in politics beyond voting, and barely even ever heard them speak about politics, I think it’s important for kids to see their parents engaging in politics, even if they don’t really understand what’s going on. It shows them that it’s not only OK, but encouraged to form and act on their own political ideas. It opens them up to discussing political issues when they get old enough to, and shows them that politics isn’t just something for the ruling elite.

I assume you’re restating this to show your agreement?

Nah, they can have it. It’s always been a symbol of white supremacy and subjugation. I don’t want it.

Nobody is ever claiming that any were ever amazing. I was on facebook when it was still called theFacebook and you needed a college email to sign up and I was on Reddit before Gamergate.

Opening up facebook to allowing anyone to join isn’t what made it shitty. Not by a long stretch. It barely even existed when that happened. It was 2 years after the site launched. Back then there wasn’t even a feed. The landing page was your profile with your Wall, and that eventually evolved into the feed. Peak facebook was from ~2006-2012. The thing that drove it to shit was the IPO and the drive for constant increase in quarterly profits that comes with a company being publicly traded.

GamerGate wasn’t massive all over Reddit. It was largely on 8chan and 4chan and a few isolated subreddits, but it didn’t even make the front page of Reddit until after mainstream media started reporting on it. Reddit has always had problems, but the thing that’s made it really shitty, again, was the IPO.

Get over your superiority complex. Nobody cares.

I found it on Voyager, but had to search for it with the exact correct spelling “50501.chat” and I only knew about it because I found it referenced in another instance and signed up on my browser on my laptop. I don’t think I would have found it on Voyager if I hadn’t already known about it.

“The dummies” didn’t ruin either Facebook or Reddit. The companies changing policies and algorithms in an effort to drive profit did.

I don’t think systems are immutable. That’s exactly my point. They are, but you have to have a strategy that can actually accomplish it. Systems aren’t changed by people just dreaming of a better one. They’re changed by motivated people executing a successful strategy.

Imma press ‘x’ to doubt…

Again, you’re missing the point. I’m not debating the overall end goal. I’m talking about the strategy to achieve it.

Just saying “the Electoral College is bad, so let’s get rid of it” is fine, but it’s not a strategy to make it happen. That’s a goal. What is the strategy to make it happen?

Likewise, just listing off a set of popular policies and saying “let’s make a new party” isn’t a strategy to actually achieving those goals. I’m not saying that voting for a 3rd party is bad because it “steals” votes from a major party. I’m saying it’s bad because it’s an effectual strategy to achieving the goal of enacting the policies in OP’s post.

You’re absolutely right that the 2 party system sucks and that the Democrats are awful. But, again, that’s not a strategy to achieve your goals. Like it or not, but none of us will ever break the 2-party system by forming a new party or complaining about how bad it is.

If you compare, say, the Democratic Party of the 1920s to the Democratic Party of the 1960s, they’re drastically different, almost diametrically opposed to each other on nearly every policy. Likewise if you compare the GOP of the 1950s to the GOP of the 1980s. Or the Democratic Party of the 1970s to the Democratic Party of the 200s. Or the GOP of the 2000s to the GOP today. How did those changes happen?

In every single instance it happened not by a new 3rd party forming or outside agitators pushing the parties. It happened because a fringe element of the party enacted an organized push in the primaries to co-opt the party, won a convincing general election victory, then strongarmed the rest of the party into ideological compliance. That’s how parties change in the US, not by being supplanted by a new party. You want a real, left-wing progressive party? Get behind a massive push to primary key Democratic leadership (I call them the Vichy caucus), win a general election, then strongarm the party into compliance.

The data in the poll is correct, but people don’t vote on policy. The problem is that OP is framing voters as hyper rational people who sit down to form a long list of their policy preferences, then examine each candidate and select the one that best aligns with themself.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, votes like that, and they never have. They look at the candidates and pick the one that’s more entertaining/has better vibes, then justify their support by either changing or disregarding their personal policy preferences, or (more often) convincing themself that the candidate supports whatever they support, regardless of the candidate’s stated positions.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying play the game to win. Don’t start with a losing strategy.

Because people don’t vote on policy, they vote on personality and vibes. It’s how it’s always been. This list of policies is (mostly) just a copypasta of the Democratic platform. But people have never voted that way. The Democrats put forth the crypt keeper, then replaced him with one of the most boring public speakers to come out of the Democratic Party in a generation. And they were running against someone who is a horrific fascist, yes, but also has stage presences and charisma and knows how to play to an audience. As much as he’s one of the worst people on the planet, Trump knows how to make himself entertaining to watch.

That’s what drives votes for politically disengaged people who don’t pay attention to politics until the middle of October every 4 years. They listen to who is more entertaining and pretend like that candidate is telling them what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not he is.

Naïveté or willful ignorance. Either way, a new 3rd party won’t accomplish anything useful.

That’s just my point. It wasn’t a party like OP here is calling for. It was a movement within the Republican Party.

What OP is calling for here is kinda the exact opposite. The Tea Party movement successfully got a bunch of people who typically don’t engage in politics to join and vote for Republicans. The never had a problem of ballot access or competing with an ideologically similar opponent in general elections because they weren’t a different party. OP here is calling for people to vote for a new third party. That’s a completely different thing.

What 3rd party did they create? The last significant (and I use that word very loosely here) new US 3rd party was the Green Party formed in the 90s.

I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, but I think a call to form an entirely new political party demonstrates a naivety with regards to how the American political system works. It’s just not going to happen. A third party will NEVER displace one of the two major parties without massive changes to the electoral system that would likely require a Constitutional Amendment.

Our system and political culture is just not structured to allow for 3rd parties. What’s more, the 2 major parties have ingrained themselves into the system so much that they have MASSIVE institutional advantages over a 3rd party.

This will never be a successful effort. I think a better goal would be to co-opt and take over the Democratic Party, booting out all the Vichy collaborationists like Schumer, Jefferies, Newsom, Adams, Pelosi, etc, and remaking the party.

With a new 3rd party, best case scenario is it has 0 impact. If it does get any votes, it’ll just divide the anti-fascist vote with the Democrats (and any other 3rd parties) making it even more difficult to win.

Given how the American political system works, I think their impact would be even more limited if they did not work within the Democratic Party. I think the only hope for a real national progressive/leftist party is to takeover and co-opt the Democratic Party, much like Trump did with the Republican Party.