Yes, you are correct that the numbers for the Green Party aren't usually enough to make a difference in any election. I'm just frustrated that they're not even providing a legitimate alternative to the Democratic Party.

How I'd want the Greens to work:

1. Run real candidates in local elections who care about the environment and get shit done. Be able to point to things like town X electing a Green as mayor and not having their water poisoned. Or 6 state reps from the Greens passing air pollution controls and getting more business into the state instead of less. Pro-bike laws. Etc.
2. Ask both national parties what they're going to promise to do for the environment and either endorse the better one or release a statement that both parties are unwilling to do anything for the environment and encouraging people to vote local.

How the Greens actually work:

1. Take money from private interests
2. Abandon all local races
3. Fuck around at the national level, drawing attention and money away from groups that would try to get anything done

Oh, my bad then. Yes: you were right.

Oh OK. Murdering rich people might effect social change. Though I'm skeptical because not a lot of people actually do it, which is an important component of that change.

I think you still end up coming around in a circle: in your fantasy of mob-justice, what prevents the wealthy from ending up being the ones who control it? (Like Vlad the Impaler!)

Surely the problem with "woke" is that right-wing media grabbed it as a boogeyman and plastered it everywhere, right? I mean, what does it even mean to say "[woke] tried to solve ... issues". It's a word. It doesn't have any agency.

The only definition I've ever heard (because right-wingers don't attempt to define it) is "awareness of systemic discrimination (particularly by the USA towards black americans)". If a handful of people talking about how the USA has some bad history and what that means for the country today... The same people getting their feelings hurt over "woke" are just going to get them hurt over some other word that they make up. Like if nobody had ever heard of "woke" they'd be crying about "diversity" (oh wait they are) or "justice" or "peace" or literally anything because words don't have meaning to that crowd beyond something to get offended over.

The question itself self-answers with a little bit of thought: reading the typo as-is doesn't make sense and there's only one obvious correction, which SalmiakDragon provided. So I read their question as more conversation/chattiness rather than genuine confusion. I was replying in kind with an attempt to riff off of my typo: what if the typo was actually intended? Could we find any meaning to the phrase "attach women"? No, not really.

"Exactly as horrible" is unfair to you. But it sounds like you're advocating to give up on rule of law and just have the strongest most violent people be the ones to decide what's right. And I'd argue that you'd just get back to where we are right now: wealthy people would control the system, they'd employ strong violent people to enforce their personal whims as "law", and you'd be complaining that nobody is willing to beat up the pedophile (because his friends would hire goons to kill them).

I mean, presumably that's what's stopping you personally from implementing your own recommendation, right? Because if you showed up and kicked this guy's ass you'd be beaten and arrested by the police.

labels that the people you were labeling didn’t even like

This is a silly criticism. "Latinx" and similar terms were used by some US kids of Latin-American descent and those people felt the "X"-ed words provided them better representation. Many native Spanish speakers didn't feel represented and objected to the terms being applied to them. So: there were two (maybe even more???) groups of people and they didn't agree on one label being applied to both of them.

It doesn't make sense to say that this is a problem with "woke" (wtf does that even mean) because the "non-woke" alternative is to use labels that people don't like... exactly the thing you're complaining woke did wrong. It's not a change making us worse off, it's just a failure to deliver total success. (Maybe it failed to deliver even partial success here? That's a conversation that might be worth having, but "worse off" seems like a straight hallucination.)

Now, if you want to say, "I have a big criticism of progressive movements: they do not succeed to the degree that they promise!" then sure. You should get in line behind literally every person who has ever considered themselves progressive, because all of them have also come up with this brilliant piece of insight and are eager to share it.

Whoah how did you type those words that are illegal to say? You must be so brave

It's interesting how the English language makes a phrase like "trans women are women" ambiguous about the number of women that each trans woman is... I always assumed "one" but you raise an interesting question.

That I've unwisely installed some bad software and I should delete it, as recommended.

100%

Also the "it wasn't a fear-based decision, I just rationally opposed all the forced child gender-transitions". It's not possible to roll ones eyes hard enough.

I actually do have empathy for a TERF who'd say, "I uncritically chugged conservative media and become terrified of stories about men 'transitioning' as a way to attach women. Now I see that was all lies and I was a fool who never tried putting myself in others' shoes."

Peter Thiel has confidence that his own personal power will keep him safe. Since he's a sociopath, having homosexuality be illegal actually benefits him because if he gets tired of a relationship he can just out the other man and have them executed.

It's not entirely clear to me whether history supports his confidence. But little no-name "activists" like the article author are always going to be destroyed.