this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
803 points (96.5% liked)
People Twitter
10114 readers
1798 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, we don't want to be fucking led, we are not sheep.
We want our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do, a job they all keep promising to do, a job for which the position exists to do, to work for the interests of the people. Elected officials are public servants, not leaders and should be following the will of the people, not telling the people what that will should be.
Mamdani's policies aren't him leading, it's him serving, serving the interests of the people and doing what we have wanted politicians to be doing this entire time. That you confuse serving, with leading, is a weird fucking rich kid perception of what being an elected official is and it's exactly why rich ppl shouldn't hold office.
Service vs leadership is a false dichotomy. You can (and should) be a leader who serves. Mamdani is serving NYers in a leadership position. He makes the calls and has the responsibility for decisions that serve his constituents.
You can also be a servant who leads. the difference is that centrist democrats don't want to serve or lead. They want to rule over a compliant electorate that isn't permitted to question their actions or judgement.
Leadership isn't herding or commanding or necessary even guiding. It certainly doesn't need to be rooted in authority. Leadership can be inspiration, knowledge, observation, deference and delegation. It can mean being a role model or a teacher. I'd argue that the people who are the most effective leaders are the ones who enable others first, and lead by example. Barking orders has awful return on investment compared to building people up.
This dude leaderships. That coulda been right outta my army leadership course, which was surprisingly less about barking orders and more about fulfilling requirements and enabling awesome.
🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
I bet if he said PLA book instead you’d be ok with it, right?
No dummy, we don't want military leaders for politicians.
Does China not torture middle eastern people enough for you? You think it’s cute, it’s disgusting
Unless you are going out there and campaigning or operationally actually doing some-fucking-thing; you absolutely do want someone to lead and fulfill your desires. If you personally are not making it happen then you want someone else to take the lead on it.
You are allowed to have a belligerent sense of independence; just don't fool yourself.
If I pay a mechanic to fix my car, that ain't them leading. If I hire a politician to enact my will, that isn't them leading. You don't have to be the one personally doing the job.
And just what is their job? You don't "hire them" to "enact [a specific] will", but to take charge of things for the body politic that their constituents can't individually solve as effectively. You elect them to analyse problems or opportunities for improvement, pool resources and insights from others, propose a course of action and coordinate the collective effort to solve them.
That is leadership. It's not rulership, nor is it strict servitude, though it is a service to their community by leading the way to improvement.
I do not in fact want to be lead.
Do you take charge in effecting political/societal change for yourself (and your community)?
Or do you disagree with the other guy's requirements for what constitutes someone who does not want to be led?
You kinda just said "no."
'Take charge'. Explain what you mean by this.
As examples (as "taking charge" can take multiple forms across mutiple goals): table and/or moderate meetings to come to consensus on goals, coordinate members for coordinated actions toward social goals, source funding for operations if funds are needed, speak on behalf of your group (or coordinate group messaging) toward other groups. To name a few generic things. Specifics depend on what you want done.
To try and sum it up: "taking charge" is providing impetus, and potentially aligning community power, toward making headway to some social/political goal.
English is not a language of domination and hierarchy you need to be careful to avoid expressing that.
You might say 'initiative' if you were being careful and conscious.
I don't know what exactly you mean by "English is not a language of domination and hierarchy" or how that really relates to what I was saying or what I originally asked you. "Taking charge" is a extremely common idiom in English.
I will concede that "take initiative" is a more neutral phrase, but you have turned to nitpicking my diction, even after I spent another full comment explicating the meaning and intention of the original question.
So it is my turn to ask what you mean by sidestepping my question? If you are uninterested in answering the question, just say so. I have done with someone else in this very post. But don't think you can confuse me with literary legerdemain. You don't answer questions by saying "you could've phrased it better."
Sorry was originally writing that sarcastic because I assume nobody is literate and I should at least be having fun.
If I completely rewrite what you asked and assume the best, sure in some cases. Its not exactly what I want, but close enough. But you didn't actually write what I'm responding to here, so...
I was going to bring in something I saw in a different thread but then I noticed you were already there.
You seem convinced that "leaders" are necessarily authoritarian. I do not believe that, so there's not going to be much point to this.
👍
That seems uncalled for. We just agreed that we're not gonna convince each other. I'm not pissed off by a thumbs up
Your take, mine is they were acting like a child
They are, if the primary was for lower house seats, representatives. Their job (in theory) is to represent the collective wants and needs of their constituents to congress and vote or introduce bills accordingly. Unfortunately in most Western democracies this little fact seems to get forgotten by those who are elected and party politics tends to take over.