Given Your "grand Leader" Comment I'm Not Sure You Got What I'm Advocating For Right. I'm Certainly Not

Given your "grand leader" comment I'm not sure you got what I'm advocating for right. I'm certainly not advocating for unelected officials, I'm advocating for no (or only where strictly necessary) officials. Instead of electing (presumably knowledgeable) officials who vote on legislation or sign executive orders, the people vote on legislation and executive orders directly, hopefully taking into account the proposals of (presumably knowledgeable) commentators. The important difference is this is a minimal-trust system, which avoids putting power in the hands of people who won't answer to you for years (as you said yourself, socdems aren't all that socialist when actually in government) (technically permanent elections or widespread enough revolutionary sentiment would achieve a lot of the same goal).

This absolutely doesn't mean you have to know everyone or come to an agreement on everything, just as you don't currently do so when electing officials. You just vote on whether you want to increase funding to hospitals (probably yes), or military aid to genocidal foreign powers (probably no), or you might do some kind of ranked choice vote to decide on a screw shape to standardise. Are most people qualified to make an informed decision on their own concerning that last one especially? Probably not. Can they consult opinions of experts and vote accordingly without handing anyone the right to screw them over? I think so.

About your operating room analogy: sure, you don't have all the domain knowledge required to assume power without listening to anyone, but if you have multiple surgeons, anesthetists e tutti quanti all giving their opinions, you can make an informed choice in your best interest, which one surgeon may have a much harder time doing due to conflicts of interest (say this particular surgeon's brother sells wheelchairs for a living).

Politicians aren't innately evil, but the incentive structure in a representative system, while definitely better than in a dictatorship, isn't particularly conducive to good management (you see a problem you created, do you do something about it, or hide it and pin the blame on the next legislature? your last term ends in a few months, do you take a bribe so that you're set for life, or refuse it to gain voter favour that won't matter anyway?).

You may even vote the same way that one person you support recommends you do 99.9% of the time, effectively emulating representative politics, and only decide to disagree on one key issue.

Logistics have also been a non-issue since the invention of networked computers, we don't need to move millions of envelopes around everytime there's a vote anymore.

Completely agree with the need for more political consciousness however.

Palestinians have said that Gaza has entered a second wave of famine, especially in the north where the food stores have started running empty again

reminder that donating just a few $ to gofundme campaigns actually helps, you don't have to donate huge amounts if you don't have the funds, every little bit is useful. give $10, $5, even $1. it all adds up. don't scroll past because you think you can't help. help in your own capacity. donate a dollar. share and speak up.

btw part of what's at stake in accepting that the family form is inherently unjust & harmful to children is, you don't have to have endured an anomalous degree of violence, coercion, or abuse in order to have been traumatised by your family & your childhood. it is an inherently violent & terrifying situation to be completely at the mercy of people who have total material and financial control over you. it is inherently violent that they have the legal right eg to hit you or deprive you of privacy, whether or not they personally exercise these rights. all of this also applies to the other most obvious population made vulnerable by the family form, the elderly