I think that they’re implying that people likely to argue that state-controlled stores are socialist are also likely to conflate any service or good offered by the state is socialism.

In the US, “socialism” is both demonized and the actual definition is obfuscated by right-wing (read: most) media in the same way other terms are, such as “woke”. This alienates the average person in the US from movements, policies, organizations, etc that would benefit them, from free school lunch programs to socialist representatives running on taxing the wealthy.

Obligatory mention that Luddites were skilled workers (weavers) whose concern with machines was that factory owners were, with the use of weaving machines, able to churn out crappier products faster, hire unskilled workers, force these workers to work in factories rather than cottages, and most importantly pay workers less.

In other words, labor power was weakened by automation of work. This happens over and over in history. (Read up on the effect of the cotton gin on the atlantic slave trade.) It doesn’t have to; automating manual work could result in shorter workweeks for the same pay. It never does.

Also Luddites occasionally crossdressed. Their name comes from King Ned Ludd, who did not actually exist.

“Bloated” lmao. I don’t think there’s a single school district in the US that has sufficient funding

If they didn’t pay (or “pay” with points/gift cards/etc) for people’s donations, most people who donate blood products would stop. Donation isn’t quick or easy, and most people are afraid of needles. Until somebody invents viable substitutes for blood, plasma, platelets and so on there will continue to be a need for blood products, and there needs to be some mechanism to encourage donations.

It’s about the power dynamic and how it informs the relationship between the electorate and elected (or, for that matter, other hierarchical structures.) The theory is that policymakers treat people better if there are real consequences for not doing so, such as losing their elected seat. (Or more…extreme consequences.)

Another version of this would be a manager giving their unionized employees a raise because of the threat of a strike. Whether you frame it as fearing the employees or frame it as cold logic, the dynamic between a union and their boss is fundamentally different than between a single employee and their boss.

Oh, definitely. The DSA-backed candidates won against a lot of corporate donor spending: https://nysfocus.com/2026/06/24/ny-primary-election-results-dsa-state-legislature-2026

Well yeah, there are two sexualities: normal and political /s*

*this is a simplification of how bigots in privileged groups tend to see the world: “normal”, or the default, and aberrations from the default. Labeling people or things as “political” is a way to attack those who don’t fall into the narrow “default” group in order to enforce their invisibility. (An aside: the negative connotations of the word deserve an essay on their own.)

Thus, women in video games is “political”. Nonwhite characters in TV shows are “political”. Being visibly queer -including posting about rainbow cookies during Pride month- is “political”.

*affected. Affect is the verb, effect is the noun. Pedantry aside, lovely sentiment.

Copied and pasted from Francesca Hong’s policy platform page: We’re going to make sure nobody goes to sleep cold, and that renter protections are consistently enforced. As governor, Rep. Hong will use her executive authority to bolster rental unit regulations, pursue aggressive regulation of slumlords and serial housing-law violators, and make it easier for tenants to flag issues and find support.

Ctrl+F for “housing” here: https://francescahong.com/policy/

“Direct” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

What an alarming number of people fail to realize: everything is politics. This apparent separation is purposeful and is one of many tools that the wealthiest 1% use to keep the rest of us divided and distracted.