I actually am genuinely interested in that fellow’s reasoning behind believing both that his job of managing people is successful, and also that all the people he managed do not like being managed by him.

Anecdotally, I have encountered workplaces containing a manager or employee that was universally disliked, and it was never because they were doing an awesome job. They did appear to think that people disliked them personally but benefited from their results. Often they seem to also believe those results would be unachievable in ways that do not produce the distaste. I am not sure these contradictions are entirely defensible.

Nope! He poisons Brock, but it doesn’t kill him. Brock survives the series. Maybe you are thinking of the tarantula kid (Drew Sharp), but that one was Meth Damon.

He killed Emilio with some kind of gas, strangled Krazy-8 with a bike lock, ran over and shot the two drug dealers that killed Combo, arguably killed Hector and Gus, and poisoned Lydia.

I have a little orange kitty that drools if he purrs hard enough. He first showed me this tendency as a kitten by drooling on my face when I was asleep, hahaha.

What, and I mean this sincerely, the fuck.

So are you just one guy with a lot of time and accounts to use, or is this like, a group of people working to make these low effort bait posts? I realize that might come across as dismissive, but I’m genuinely interested. Let’s chat!

It’s like you’re not even trying.

I see. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your point of view. Still not my preferred method of engagement, but I understand better where you were coming from, and that’s what I was trying to accomplish!

Okay, fair. I asked that in that way because I believe that politicians listen primarily to corporations, sure, and secondarily to reliable voting blocs. My thought was that by proving to be an unreliable voting bloc, there’s a reasonable risk that instead of trying to court that bloc to make it turn out more, they would just go after other blocs that already are reliable.

But! You don’t think the democrats would try to court the right instead of the left if the left proves to be an unreliable voter bloc. Fair! What about the rest? We punish them via withholding of votes, they lose, and then… by what mechanism are they pushed to the left? By the loss, or is there more to the idea? What if they don’t, or don’t do it good enough? Withhold votes and make them lose again? Is there ever an adjustment to the plan, or is it just an unfortunate helping of our ideological opponents for however long it takes for the Democrats to get it right?

I’m not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I’m, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?

Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that’s not a controversial assumption.

How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?

What’s that from? The Simpsons?

Sure, but that’s not the end stage of the thought experiment. It’s not really even the start. How exactly is this larger group of people supposed to enact any viable change? I think we could agree that seems unlikely to be possible in an unorganized/uncoordinated manner. The solution to that is to get organized and coordinate, right?

Well what does that look like? That could take nearly as many forms as people you ask to agree - so you’d need an idea that enough people would fall behind to still out number. Once that is achieved… What? If the goal of the burgeoning group is violent revolution, they won’t get very far into the planning phase before being scooped up by security forces in some form or another. If the goal is nonviolent revolution, such as refusal to work, the system is constructed in such a way that those you would need to participate have a lot to lose, and little ability to withstand a protected protest/encounter/whatever, vs, presumably, a group that could easily outlast all of those things, as well as their children, and their children’s children.

That’s not to say nothing can work, but I think it might be just a bit reductive to suggest that things are as simple as suggesting it is total apathy in those who would need to unite to accomplish these goals that explains why the goals aren’t striven towards.

What could possibly go wrong with that. I heard the Russians have been very trustworthy in the recent past.