Let me get this straight... @protestia concluded that we couldn't be sure of @SlowToWrite's intent or motivations based on what is known (so far), and we're called "Terribly wrong" and accused of "media malfeasance." But blatantly false and racialized nonsense like this gets posted, shadow-deleted over 20K views later, and the same voices who were just clutching their pearls over our hesitance to accept their Sey verdict say absolutely nothing. Maybe you didn't see it. But now you have. You guys gonna ask Joel to publicly apologize for this inexcusable jackassery, or are you all too busy making AI Anakin memes like a bunch of 3rd graders to pull the planks out of your eyes?

This whole "argument" depends on three category errors (aside from a healthy clickbait game): Redistribution is not socialism. Universal suffrage is not "raw democracy." And a republic does not cease being a republic because more people are allowed to elect its representatives. Madison's distinction was between direct democracy and representative republican government, not between "only the right people vote" and "every adult votes." In Federalist No. 10, he explicitly defines a republic by the principle of representation: citizens elect representatives rather than assembling to govern directly. And the "98% of jobs went to women" line badly overstates what the employment data say. The underlying BLS number is real: female payroll employment rose by 158,000 in August while total payroll employment rose by 162,000. But those are net employment changes, not new hires. Millions of people are hired and millions separate from jobs every month. In July, for example, there were about 5.3 million hires and 5.1 million separations. So millions of men could have gotten jobs in August while a roughly equal number of men left jobs, producing very little net male employment growth. Saying "98% of jobs went to women" invites the listener to hear something the statistic simply does not establish. There are serious arguments to be made about welfare cliffs, debt, redistribution, immigration, globalization, and the incentives created by democratic politics. You don’t strengthen those arguments by redefining socialism, confusing universal suffrage with direct democracy, or converting a one-month net employment change into evidence that the government "gave" nearly all the jobs to women. As with a number of these videos, the argument seems to begin with a preexisting theory of social hierarchy and male dispossession, tailored for a perpetually online, disaffected, young-male audience, and then selectively arranges economics and history around that narrative to produce a novel theory and accompanying scandalous headline. Publishing provocative claims is one thing. But if the point is to persuade people that your political theory is serious, easily checked distinctions like net job growth versus actual hiring matter.