This does absolutely nothing to counter what I said. You just exchanged one metaphysical argument for another that functions the same way. The rest is just unnecessary reiteration of commonly known information. Yes, I know what a sheepdog is. I know who Bernie is. I know who Biden is. Do you know what materialism actually entails? Do you know what vibes-based politics is?

This is horseshit. Potentially productive time and effort being misdirected is not "metaphysical," "idealist," or "vibes-based."

I'm explaining shit you say you already know because you're acting like you don't. If you understand what a sheepdog is, then you should understand that misdirecting popular enthusiasm is a serious concern. That's it, that's the whole thing.

You want me to argue something I don't believe . . . Once again, I have common sense.

I said that you can argue that. I don't give a shit and I wouldn't want you to present that argument to me regardless, because apparently me repeatedly telling you that I'm not interested in litigating the particulars of the direction of Mamdani's campaign is not enough.

I am not. I'm talking about an organization choosing what to do with their resources.

You are presenting an absurd defense. You said:

It's their time and energy they're choosing, through supposed democratic choice, to spend.

It's either not socialist energy because DSA aren't real socialists or it is socialist energy but not yours to quarterback because you're unwilling to join the democratic decision on how to spend it.

Are you telling me that you aren't finger wagging someone for criticizing a "democratic decision"? What could you possibly mean by quarterbacking if not that you don't like someone saying the DSA should be doing something else?

The broadest available scale . . . It's not the broadest available group of people on the internet.

I just mentioned the scale thing to give a complete description. It wasn't meant to be pointed, but I guess I should have been more clear.

I agree that they did their democratic procedure perfectly fine to the limited extent of my knowledge. You might notice that every single thing I said reaffirmed that it was democratic, but that it being democratic did not place people's decision making above criticism (see "quarterbacking").

I didn't say you couldn't criticize it but your criticism means very little if it comes from a place of sour grapes

This is still nonsense. The truth doesn't bend to people's emotional motivations. It doesn't matter if I, for example, am an insufferable ultra or a Trot that just wants to sell newspapers; if I say something true then it is still true. If it is false, then it's not because I have a bad attitude. This framing is worse than worthless because it just functions as a framework of excuses to turn your brain off, which is a pattern I see emerging here.

Whether the goals align with my understanding of theory is besides the point. They gained some popular support both as an org and for the candidate they chose to support. Who am I, who have never attempted to join the DSA or influence their decision making process, to come in at the 11th hour and tell them they're wasting time? Especially when my alternative is just another org essentially doing the same thing?

I can't quite tell the degree to which you're just deflecting outside criticism again (see the bit about democracy) versus armchair criticism. Assuming the latter, I must point out to you that you surely denounce the ACP and you absolutely should. You don't need to be a veteran canvasser and organizer to know that what the ACP is doing is generally terrible, and you can look at their individual actions and conclude in most cases that they are individually terrible. I assume that you also have rightful criticisms of the Soviet Union, despite them not being a cartoonish malignance like the ACP and also accomplishing incomparably more for humanity than either the ACP or DSA.

Experience is a great thing to have, but it's not a prerequisite for having valid criticisms if the organization -- however active and popular -- fails basic hurdles.

Like I said in the last thread, nobody on this site, regardless of tendency or party affiliation, knows how to bring about revolution in the US. Many, if not most, think it's impossible based on relatively recent history. If it's impossible, then there is no waste of potential because the potential doesn't exist. If it's not impossible, then the usual go-tos (unionizing, mutual aid, protests, third parties) haven't produced anything quickly and results remain to be seen. Therefore nobody has the secret recipe. Nobody gets the affordance of sticking their nose up at those options.

This is so absurd. Alright, so when someone firebombs a Walmart to convince the masses to cast off their shackles, will you say nothing? When a tenant union makes city-wide gains for tenants' rights but deliberately excludes trans tenants from the organizing process, will you say nothing? No, you would surely say something, because you know that some approaches are more worthwhile than others, which means that right now you're just contriving excuses to avoid engaging with the criticism directly.

I will repeat yet again that I don't care about litigating on Mamdani, I just think your arguments are toxic. I'll also note for completeness that it looks like I edited my comment after you started writing yours, but I just did it to cut stuff out, so it's not that important.