If I had to diagnose the cause of the "Bluesky malaise" as @kleinman.bsky.social calls it, I would describe it as a lot of people without the skills or resources or interest in journalism or activism mistakenly believing that being performatively miserable all the time will net the same results.

I think this person is just okay with throwing the homeless and trans people under the bus if it means the person on the ticket says they're a Dem. That's why they won't answer a very simple question.

There is nothing wrong engaging in the appropriate sorts of reactions to people like this. People you stand for need to know that you care. And they do.

True, but we shouldn't just stop the hard work of trying to get into, reframe, and engage those people just because we think that social mechanism is icky. All I've been saying here is that we should have a socialization mechanism similar to Republicans so activists can pressure liberals more.

I really think there's something getting lost in translation here. I am not proposing deception nor teaming up with billionaires. What I'm proposing is an advocacy for a democratic means to get young people in the door to have a means to be activists and have their views taken seriously.

I know that. I'm saying that they aren't fighting for that bare minimum when they really ought to be, and their opposition in practice to this really speaks volumes.

I think what I'm arguing is that if we determine that ideologies are at least worldviews with specific values at play, liberalism is very much one of those.

I'm just saying that that manner of political struggle (or lack thereof) is what I mean by not fully (or sometimes partially) standing up for the difference principle. And that's how, despite liberalism being an ideology with specific values, modern liberals largely don't seem to care.

Somewhat true. But the ideological underpinnings are still liberal values at the end of the day. What you're describing are methods for realizing liberal ideology.

I don't disagree with this claim, but the issue is that they will propose something like this and then just stand by while it gets destroyed. That reads to people like they just did it to stay in power, and then gave the game away when it came to trying to fight the monsters trying to destroy it.

The ACA was gutted by Repubicans endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, made into a more conservative policy, with Obama was made into the bad guy over it, and still Democrats just let that all happen in the name of bipartisanship.

I agree that the elites should be primaried, but that threat should also be held over their head unless they do what we need them to do. And we can't just wave a magic wand and eliminate the elite class. We need to socialize with them so there is a venue to actually oppose them.

That's true, but that's not what the article is talking about. The article is referring to the social apparatus that allowed young people to socialize with the most elite members of the party and have activist inroads to transform the party. Every institution should have this.