The article you linked has at least 3 different kinds of socialism that satisfy “democratic” socialism:

Democratic socialists have promoted various different models of socialism and economics, ranging from market socialism, where socially owned enterprises operate in competitive markets and are self-managed by their workforce, to non-market participatory socialism based on decentralised economic planning.[127] Democratic socialism can also be committed to a decentralised form of economic planning where productive units are integrated into a single organisation and organised based on self-management.[22]

What definition do you mean by it?

Capitalism with a strong safety net sounds like you’re avoiding the question. The question is how to replace capitalism, not how to improve it.

How are you defining democratic socialism? Usually when I ask people to define socialism they answer with capitalism with extra undefined steps whereby the set of employees of a business is legally forced to be equal to that business’s set of owners. I’m not familiar with “democratic” as a modifier to the term, though.

Step 1: Think of a viable alternative.

No-one has yet achieved step 1, which makes subsequent steps harder. It’s easy to get your hands on people who will answer with magical thinking, but a system that will actually work and isn’t capitalism has yet to be invented.

He couldn’t remember if he did or not, is the joke.

It is making mistakes, not lying. To lie it must believe it is telling falsehoods, and it is not capable of belief.

Communism is a hell of a drug.

Who pronounces it m’kay instead of 'mkay?

But they don’t easily understand you. You’re being deliberately lazy and shifting the onus of putting mental work into the conversation onto your conversational partner. Now they have to work extra-hard to deciphwr your gibberish. The decent, respectful thing to do is treat them as an equal, and put an equal amount of effort into achieving communication.

Or I could just tell you to flarfle your garglax. Seems perfectly clear to me, so obviously you’re in the wrong if you complain.

A person turning right on red fundamentally lacks right of way: when someone doing that gets in a collision, it was inherently an illegal right turn without the law changing. I don’t see how changing the law from one kind of that turn being illegal to another would change the risks in any meaningful way.