Zohran: "It's not simply to raise consciousness, but to win socialism… There are other issues we firmly believe in… the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support, at this very moment."
He's very honest. Don't vote for this!
It's interesting to me that in the (fading?) age of intersectionality, rich DSA socialists don't see the irony of "speaking for the working class." (A group that speaks and votes for itself quite well.) Flip this to race or gender or sex and it's not OK.
I mean, they're stuck with the Marxist language they have, but it's so demeaning to be told by an outsider than you lack "consciousness." My problem is I don't understand my problem? And YOU are my savior?
Zohran voters: He's not that radical.
Zohran: No, really, DSA is apologetically radical.
Zohran voters: He just wants Western Europe socialism.
Zohran: The goal is to end capitalism and seize the means of production.
Zohran voters: His new Instagram reel is so cute!
Zohran haters: He's a foreigner
Me: He's a US citizen
Zohran haters: He's a Muslim
Me: So what?
Zohran haters: He's an immigrant
Me: So's my mom
Zohran haters: He should be deported!
Me: Deport deez nuts!
[Fade to the sound of Zohran voters voting]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Domestic violence is the Achilles heel of the abolition/reform movement. Often DV is strangely exempt from "reform" (eg: bail reform) because it would highlight how pro-criminal reforms are. But "discovery reform" covered everything. And DV victims' advocates are pushing back.
So whose side are you on? (I'm surprised that DA Bragg supports this change.) And can we stop using the word "reform" to mean only those who advocate for less prosecution and jail? I mean, this proposed change is reform. And for the better. cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/03…
The thing is there's nothing about Discovery Reform that uniquely affects Domestic Violence victims. It's just that with DV, there are advocates who push back on the harm from abolitionist "reformers". Good. But the same problems affects all crime victims. We should care more.
Does nobody have a calculate? Or common sense? Or a olfactory sensor to do a sniff test?
A "new study" finds that 2% of US Adults have been injured at a mass shooting.
No.
"7% reported having been present."
7% of US adults = 18,346,00 people
Are you effing kidding me?
Mass shooting, defined as "where 4 or more people are shot." OK. Since 2014, says the study, "there have been nearly 5,000 mass shootings documented nationwide, with more than 500 occurring annually since 2020."
This would mean, if there were no repeat viewers, there would be 3,670 witnesses at every mass shooting in America over the past 10 years. Let's make in 30 years. I don't know. That still means over 1,000 unique witnesses at every mass shooting.
I'm tweeting this thread about mental health with permission, it's is from a DM. This isn't about me, but somebody else. But I think more people need to tell their stories. The system is working as designed. it's is poorly designed. Society fails.
(1/7)
"My mom has been sick for ten years. The system is terrible. She’s been on in a psych ward for 4 times. When she is on her medication she is great. But when she’s off, she’s dangerously delusional…
"Most people cannot imagine what it’s like. I’ve begged hospitals for outpatient support but nothing. Kendra’s law is hard because you have to be clearly suicidal or homicidal but...
I called this a month ago. But let's focus on the newspaper coverage. There are three big NYC newspapers. The different coverage is revealing. The Post tells you why the jury acquitted, the Daily News basically lays out the prosecutor's case. The NYT does "the context" thing.
Both the Times and News mention how Penny was supported by right-wing groups, which is true, but does seem irrelevant to the jury's decision. The NYT compares this case to Bernie Goetz, who shot and wanted to kill. Daily News mentions Goetz in a Sharpton quote. The Post does not.
The Times and News lay out the big picture but don't mention the key facts of the case that led to acquittal. NYT: "Neely strode through the subway car that afternoon, yelling at passengers and frightening them, according to witnesses." Just "frightened"? Doesn't sound soooo bad.
Violence and murders are way down in Baltimore. My first thought is, "I wonder how much arrests have gone up?" No, not _if_, but "how much". Because violence won't go down without police getting back in the crime-fighting game (community organizations notwithstanding). (thread)
So I go to Baltimore Open Data and download arrest data. Easy peasy. This is almost too easy because I know what I'm going to find before I crunch the numbers. data.baltimorecity.gov/datasets/619ec…
Now I no longer have my ear close to the ground in Baltimore, but I say new police leadership, a supportive mayor, plus a newly elected competent prosecutor who doesn't hold a grudge against police (a low bar, but so it is) can make all the difference in the world. Leadership.
"VOCAL-NY, an organization involved in the push to close Rikers" wants to close all jails and end incarceration. Their "north star" is emptying jails and closing Rikers, Why Ashley Southall of the NYT gives them the last word here, I do not know. nytimes.com/2024/11/29/nyr…
What to they want in an appointed receiver of Rikers? A commitment to "antiracism," "decarceration," & ending "racist and classist criminalization," plus no experience as a cop, corrections officer, or other law enforcement representative." To run a jail. vocal-ny.org/wp-content/upl…
Now they're right that a receivership will make ending incarceration more difficult. Good. One thing the receivership may do is effectively put a kibosh on defunding/closing Rikers. Such as what happened in 2020 with defund police in Baltimore. The judge said "No. Off the table."