MonkRome

Ahh, got it. Well the party is just a mechanism, it can be completely replaced and/or highjacked. I think the problem is really the lack of a cohesive block of people on the left. People on the left have about as many beliefs as stars in the sky, and too much pride to merge those together into a movement with a consensus. I don't think the left has ever really given real organized effort to highjacking/replacing the party, they've spent more time protesting it instead.

Additionally, we are smaller than people on Lemmy believe, part of highjacking the party has to be vastly improved messaging and outreach. Bernie isn't even that far left and I remember about 3/4 of Dems over 50 in my area hating him, calling him an extremist. True left wing people are smaller than we think.

Accelerationism and violent revolution rarely provide the outcome people are looking for. It just creates a power vacuum that powerful people fill. The idea that we can just break it and start over is a fantasy. If we break it, people like Peter Theil get their wildest dreams of corporate city states, or someone else gets their slavery and genocide. Bernie Sanders and AOC are not going to be starting the new government.

I worked with and encountered many politicians in the past and maybe 1 in 10 Dems was "pro" corporate that I encountered. The problem is that the 1 in 10 are enough to slow progress to a crawl. Just assuming that all Dems are beholden to billionaires is silly.

Many of those running for office are using the only left wing mechanism available. Left wing people are all over the party in state and federal governments. If we want our government to move left, we need the Dems to move left.

You move them left by becoming the party and forcing them further left, imo. The party is a sum of it's people, if the members become more left wing, then the party will. See what Trump did to the Republicans, half the party despised him, they feed his agenda because without him their party ends. The left wing could do the same if they didn't see giving up as a viable strategy...

It's entirely dishonest to pretend the Democrats haven't had large factions in their party entirely worker based. The largest support system for the party has historically been labor unions. Talking about class traitors, imaging having perfect be the enemy of good and refusing to improve what we have towards a better system. Accelerationism is not a solution.

If you want to run for president, governor, or mayor those positions attract enough money to effectively remove authenticity from the race. If you have 4 Dems in the primary and 1 of them is a business dem, that's the one most likely to have enormous capital shifted to. Which creates the conditions for their future victory. Our system of government and economic system are both infinitely corruptible irrespective of party.

I have a lot of criticism for the Dems, but I've also worked with them at several levels. A huge portion of the party is former or current blue collar. I think a lot of people see what they want to see. It's easy to think of the party as evil corpo shills, but the problem really is that the corpo shills rise to the top, not that they are as prevalent as people think they are. Money puts people in the executive.

Even if it's not about other people expecting money, people adjust their lifestyle to their money, even when it causes them to be 10 times as busy as a result. Suddenly you're managing your house cleaner, your cook, you have contractors at your house every week, you decide you need more things, that all need maintenance, you're constantly managing people. One day you look at that and think, why do I always have so much on my plate when I'm so rich.

If people simplified their lives at the same time they became rich, they would be much happier, imo.

If someone hired someone provably less qualified that would be easy grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. The problem is actually usually the opposite. People from disadvantaged groups often have to work way harder and be way more qualified just to be treated equally in society.

DEI isn't about who we hire and fire specifically but about how we as a society of institutions act overall. People in DEI might review the hiring and firing practices more holistically as one part of their job. Possibly focusing on recruiting practices including all communities (who are you advertising the job to?), job descriptions being simplified and more honest to what is actually required (broadening who qualifies), training hiring and firing authorities about unconscious bias, etc. That enables them to follow the eeoc laws and truly hire people that are most qualified while having a more representative candidate pool, resulting in a more representative group of employees. When you're correcting your hiring practices to be more equitable, you don't need to hire people less qualified.

DEI would also be how they are treated once there, how the organization treats their staff in a fair and equitable manner. How current policies and processes can be changed to remove structural bias. How to best utilize a broad range of perspectives to improve your organization. For business often how you can include a broader range of targets to market to, etc. Analyzing the structure as a whole for institutional bias. That's all DEI.

The right has perverted the concept of DEI to make people believe unqualified people are landing positions when that's not what DEI is even there for.

The answer to this of you hear someone say this earnestly is: Why would they have a slightly lower GPA? If anything usually when equally qualified candidates go head to head the white person still has a statistical advantage, even with organizations that have DEI in their mission. This would imply people in disadvantaged groups usually have to be more qualified to get hired.

I'm married and 41, I'm just pointing out the real time needed. If you are actually trying to be healthy, and not just shoveling extra sugar and saturated/trans fats down your throat, then often the best choice is to cook your own food. Restaurants almost all prioritize taste, cost, and efficiency over health. Our society makes it difficult to stay healthy. So doing things while also staying, healthy is time consuming.

Edit: Also getting takeout still takes time, order, wait, pickup, eat, cleanup, you're still down at least an hour unless you get fast food.

It takes way more than an hour if you are actually cooking your own food. Cook, eat, cleanup. 1.5 hours minimum, often more.

Where I live a light tap of the horn, as short as you can make it, is a polite "wake up", a quick flash of the lights is also used to tell people their lights are off or another thing is wrong.