Some of us pay ourselves to install an ad blocker and then we keep our money and we don’t get any ads.

No, wrong, try again. Many of us, certainly at least tens of thousands of academics, have switched to submitting and supporting free open journals.

So I agree with your conclusion, but your factual basis is faulty.

You mean the primary voters who chose Bernie over Hillary, but were undercut by secret DNC insiders? I remember that quite well.

Oh my friend, you read like an undercover right-wing plant. It’s fairly obvious to anyone with a conscience that genocide is the simplest and most important issue that a candidate could fuck up. And Harris did that.

Let’s compare issues. I would say that on various issues (immigration, defense spending, health care) her stances were certainly not left-wing. Center, center-right, pro-corporate, that’s what I would say. And these are important issues. But I think it’s also true that she could have maintained many of those stances and still win. After all, previous Democrat presidents did.

If you’re afraid to say that genocide is wrong, and don’t actively work to stop it, you deserve to lose.

Most? Well that’s a nice claim. I wonder if it’s true. Kinda think not. Kinda think passiveness was more common.

I’ll be more pedantic. If the bosses hinted or promised pay raises if sales went up, which bosses often do, and sales often do, then it is wage theft.

Most of the people that you hear described as radical leftists are actually not radical leftists, which means most of those conflicts are coming from somewhere else, and they’re a distraction from the potential goodness of serious radical leftist policy proposals.

Obviously there’s a lot more that can be said on the topic, but what we typically see with those buzzwords is pure distraction, 100% spam, totally intentional deflection from what should be serious discussions.