geekwithsoul

The problem is the laymen expect it to do reasoning, so the sales & marketing team says that it can do reasoning, and then the CEO will have consumed the Kool-Aid and restructure the company because he believes it can do reasoning.

Always frustrates me how underutilized @media print is. Always liked crafting some good CSS for it on sites, especially ones that I worked on that were document heavy.

Or people without any media literacy are more likely to vote for conservatives…

I don’t disagree with any of that, but again that context wasn’t obvious in your original post.

Also, those anti-democratic tendencies are inherent in all large organizations. And yes, it takes constant pressure to limit it, but that pressure needs to have a laser-like focus to be effective - otherwise bureaucracy and inertia win. That said, I’ve been involved in politics for almost 40 years, and the cliquish, insular, shambling monstrosity of the DNC is a mess - but it’s still actually better run and more open than any nationwide Democratic or GOP political committee in this country’s history. I mean the bar is on the floor in that regards, but progress and success are possible if done smartly.

Then help me understand - how do you feel that sharing this without the correct context was constructive?

Then my only advice would be to try and share in ways that are constructive rather than the opposite.

You could have just admitted it was a mistake without the grandstanding. All Democrats criticize the Democratic Party - it’s like a requirement, and it doesn’t make you special.

Criticism is our strength, though it’s often viewed as a weakness by others. But that criticism needs to be grounded in facts and reality, or else it undercuts the actual germane and real criticisms that need to be discussed and acted on.

If your post was in error, as you said, delete it and post something constructive. Maybe even link to the same thing, note the age of the link, but ask what needs to be done to make sure this doesn’t happen again. That might actually be a useful discussion. Otherwise you’re just throwing metaphorical molotovs and doing unintended damage.

I simply outlined the only two possible motivations for the post that I could think of and gave OP a prompt to explain if it was simply a mistake on their part. Did I miss a motivation that explains the context of the post?

This statement was from 23 July and has been overcome by events. Harris is the nominee. The only reasons to share this 3 weeks after it was published is to either pretend that there is dissent on the left about who should be the nominee, or it was a simple mistake and you didn’t see the date. Which is it?