The ship is sinking, and I'm saying, "We have to plug these holes," and the liberals respond, "It's actually really antisemitic for you to say the holes exist, and if you try to fix them we'll break your legs." And so, what can I do except rip planks off so I at least have something to cling to when it all goes down?

Holy shit, I love that analogy.

All in all, I mostly agree with your comment. I also advocate for third-party voting, like I said before, to signal what you do want. I don't believe that defeat is inevitable, and I agree that structural change is necessary, whether by propping up the progressive wing within the Democratic Party or by propping progressive movements outside of it.

Our disagreement on methods is effectively just about the federal level in swing states, where I believe that the risk for a Spoiler Effect and stakes for loss are too high to justify the signalling value, particularly since the Dem leadership seems to habitually (or intentionally) "misunderstand" any close call and run away in the wrong direction instead of figuring out how to win votes.

Hence my suggestion to build the foundation for that change from the bottom up: You won't topple the tip while its base stands firm, but if that base starts shaking or shifting, the top will have to follow.

This is where my grudge lies primarily with the (voluntary) non-voters, as well as those who advocate for not voting at all, which is also why my understanding of your position fundamentally pivoted when I realised that that's not actually your stance. To vote third party and send a signal is far more valuable than to not vote at all. It is a form of protest, rather than indifference.

Our disagreement is a nuance, but in the end, we want the same thing, and I respect your stance and integrity all the same.