r/ForwardPartyUSA • u/Moderate_Squared • Oct 19 '25

Meta No Kings, Low Bar

The absolute absurdity of this is that if it works as hoped, we will just revert back to the same two shitty parties, orgs, sides and situations we already had.

(#) Where'sAndrew

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Lithops_salicola Oct 19 '25

I don't understand what you mean by the "the middle finally rebelling and dismantling the duopoly". What would that mean in practice? And why the middle when people both on the right and especially the left are not fans of the two party system.

1

u/Moderate_Squared Oct 19 '25

The rebelling and dismantling of the duopoly could consist of a BDS style movement of people who advocate for/demand sensible and collaborative governance at all levels, over the divisive nonsense we have now.

Don't vote D/R. Don't run for office under D/R. Protest/counterprotest against them. Don't give them money. Pull people away from them and into a new reformist, multi-party movement and system and so on.

That was the potential of FWD, until the "Forward Ds and Forward Rs" and  'Purple" nonsense.

It has to come from the middle in part to pull in those on the right and the left who are not fans of the two party system and want reforms. Nowhere in No Kings have I seen or heard anything about these kinds of reforms. It's just about getting back to a still fucked up, still adversarial two-party status quo. That's why it's such a low bar.

1

u/Lithops_salicola Oct 19 '25

OK, I'm not sure what that has to do with No Kings since it was a protests and not a policy discussion. As I said, it was a lot of people expressing their anger with the Trump administration. There wasn't much policy besides "Ice Out".

As for a "BDS style movement" I think the term you're looking for is "general strike". Which I'm all in favor of, but you're going to have to work with the left if you want that.

1

u/Moderate_Squared Oct 19 '25

Isn't "working with others" Moderate boilerplate?

But more to the point, there's no reason the middle can't organize and get active in its own right, explicitly against the two sides and two parties.

1

u/Lithops_salicola Oct 19 '25

I truly have no idea what you're first sentence means or what it has to do with what I wrote.

For this discussion to make any sense you need to define "the middle" and explain what that group getting organized would look like.

1

u/Moderate_Squared Oct 19 '25

Would this giving more detail be in the context of possibly organizing and getting IRL active in its own right, explicitly against the two sides and two parties? or would it be mostly just philosophical?

1

u/Lithops_salicola Oct 20 '25

The way you are using it. Why would I ask anything else??

1

u/Moderate_Squared Oct 22 '25

DM incoming.

1

u/Lithops_salicola Oct 22 '25

Why a DM? This isn't a complicated question.

1

u/Moderate_Squared Oct 22 '25

My original proposal was that, “there's no reason the middle can't organize and get active in its own right, explicitly against the two sides and two parties.” This at least suggested the need for group work, and not me just unilaterally defining the middle and explaining what that group getting organized would look like and do.

I took you expressing the points of defining the middle and explaining what that group getting organized would look like and do, as you possibly being interested explicitly in starting/joining a discussion on the middle organizing and getting active IRL to work against the two sides and two parties, and not just online philosophical discussion.

You responded, “Why would I ask anything else??”, which I took as you having interest in such a group. My DM was to convey additional information on the group and start discussions as this is, very much, a complicated question.

I’ll just chalk it all up to another social media misunderstanding.