The Undercurrent's banner
The Undercurrent's profile picture

The Undercurrent

@NotTheirScript19,513 subscribers

Proud American. Jew. Happily married conservative leaning mom. Interested in politics, culture, & other stuff.

Shorts

MEET ASHIK SIDDIQUE. He is the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and he wants to abolish the United States Senate. Siddique has never accomplished anything that would justify placing him above the constitutional system he wants to dismantle. Yet socialism has given him the confidence to believe the problem is not his lack of experience. The problem is the structure of the country itself. Abolishing the Senate would erase equal representation for every state. California could dominate Wyoming. New York could overpower Nebraska. Political control would shift toward a handful of densely populated metropolitan areas, while smaller and rural states would lose one of their principal protections in the federal government. It would also eliminate the chamber responsible for confirming federal judges and Cabinet officials, approving treaties, conducting impeachment trials, and slowing legislation before temporary political majorities can force it through. And that is the real objective. The Senate frustrates radical movements because it prevents a narrow ideological majority concentrated in major cities from immediately transforming the entire country. Socialists call that undemocratic because they do not merely want representation. They want fewer obstacles between themselves and power. Siddique says the Senate was built for wealthy landowners. His solution is to destroy one of the central checks in the Constitution and dramatically expand the House instead. DSA has repeatedly promoted abolishing or weakening institutions that restrain raw majority power, including the Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court. This is why socialism should never be treated as a harmless demand for cheaper healthcare or higher wages. Its leaders are openly telling you they want to redesign the government, remove constitutional guardrails, and concentrate power where their movement believes it can win. Like many of the leader in the DSA, Ashik Siddique has built remarkably little. But he is ready to demolish quite a lot.

MEET ASHIK SIDDIQUE. He is the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and he wants to abolish the United States Senate. Siddique has never accomplished anything that would justify placing him above the constitutional system he wants to dismantle. Yet socialism has given him the confidence to believe the problem is not his lack of experience. The problem is the structure of the country itself. Abolishing the Senate would erase equal representation for every state. California could dominate Wyoming. New York could overpower Nebraska. Political control would shift toward a handful of densely populated metropolitan areas, while smaller and rural states would lose one of their principal protections in the federal government. It would also eliminate the chamber responsible for confirming federal judges and Cabinet officials, approving treaties, conducting impeachment trials, and slowing legislation before temporary political majorities can force it through. And that is the real objective. The Senate frustrates radical movements because it prevents a narrow ideological majority concentrated in major cities from immediately transforming the entire country. Socialists call that undemocratic because they do not merely want representation. They want fewer obstacles between themselves and power. Siddique says the Senate was built for wealthy landowners. His solution is to destroy one of the central checks in the Constitution and dramatically expand the House instead. DSA has repeatedly promoted abolishing or weakening institutions that restrain raw majority power, including the Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court. This is why socialism should never be treated as a harmless demand for cheaper healthcare or higher wages. Its leaders are openly telling you they want to redesign the government, remove constitutional guardrails, and concentrate power where their movement believes it can win. Like many of the leader in the DSA, Ashik Siddique has built remarkably little. But he is ready to demolish quite a lot.

34,516 Aufrufe

Videos

NotTheirScript's profile picture

DREW AFUALO BUILT HER CAREER DEFENDING WOMEN. NOW WOMEN ARE BEING TOLD THEY’RE WRONG FOR DEFENDING THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE. If you don’t know Drew, she became a massive TikTok creator by roasting misogynistic men. Her brand was unapologetic feminism, and she eventually turned that audience into podcasts, a book and a much larger media career. Then a recent podcast clip blew up. Her guest said trans women have a more beautiful understanding of womanhood and described the programming of cis women as sad. Drew agreed. The conversation went on to contrast trans women’s beautiful, expansive understanding of womanhood with cis women focusing on things like sexual violence and the realities associated with being female. And women understandably said: HOLD ON. There is nothing hateful about acknowledging that biological women and trans women are different. That distinction matters precisely because women’s bodies have shaped our lives: puberty, periods, pregnancy, childbirth, reproductive health, physical vulnerability and the risk of sexual violence. Those experiences aren’t propaganda. They aren’t some inferior version of womanhood women need to unlearn. They’re reality. And this is where I think creators have done real damage. We have normalized the idea that simply acknowledging biological differences is somehow transphobic. So women are expected to carefully validate everyone else’s experience while increasingly being told that describing our OWN experience is exclusionary. You can treat transgender people with dignity and respect while still saying biological sex is real. Those positions are not contradictory. And Drew’s apology fell short for the same reason so many influencer apologies do: too much explaining the intent and not enough acknowledging what was actually said. If your entire career is built around calling out people who demean women, you should recognize it when women tell you they feel demeaned. Women should not have to erase themselves to prove they are compassionate.

The Undercurrent

17,840 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar