Leate Wonceslace

an image of Charlie Kirk. "Claims to be pro-life."

LMFAO get fucked, fathead.

A digital recreation of his final moments:

> Trump has a long way to go to catch up to biden's crimes

What did Biden do that hurt the people of Gaza that Trump hasn't done?

They've both supplied weapons.
Trump is actively assisting settlers in the area.
His family is even investing in local real estate.
I don't think you're being coherent.

The Data where Trump is not only ignoring but actively imprisoning pro-palestinian protestors.

The Data that things are getting worse faster than they were under Biden.

Y'know. Readily available facts that show abstaining doesn't get you anything.

The Data shows that Voting for Harris would've been better for the people of Gaza.

How are you deriving inferences about people who *started* the narrative from *polling data?*

The crowd that started the advocacy against Harris wouldn't have *ever* voted for her. There's abstentionists every year with a new song each time.

You bring a good point, though; it's good to pressure the dems. How's pressuring Trump going?

Do you believe that to stay neutral is to side with the oppressor?

I will, for the sake of this discussion, simply ✨grant that as true✨ and ask a couple question:

How is that relevant to what we were just talking about?

Does that mean *voting for her* (with all the context thereof as previously discussed) is pro-genocide?

I'm not the one who chose to pair voting for Kamala Harris with being pro-genocide. The counter-narrative (that if we analyze the decisions and their consequences we find that it's the opposite) is a product of the facts of the situation, that initial lie, and the tactics of those who spread it.

> Ultimately you're trying to

Speaks of the content of my mind.

I can see how my actions may inspire feelings of shame, but that's not the goal; I'd prefer that others not feel shame. I speak of the consequences of actions with the hope of being understood and for others to give due consideration.

You don't know the content of my mind. I've long held the position that abstentionism is not a beneficial component to a viable strategy, even if one seeks to subvert the system entirely. Despite what you insinuate, one does not necessitate the other.

I have sometimes got confirmation that tactics like that have swayed people's opinions. a couple of times someone I was arguing with actually changed their minds. Usually, you can't ever know and you just need to hope.

That's fair. I just needed to point out the gap between the thing that she said and the thing that was being expressed to bypass it. I can't know if she's doing it intentionally or not, so I needed to do something that worked either way and focusing on the content rather than the intent seemed best.

The Anti-genocide thing to do is to take actions that will reduce genocide.The Pro-genocide is to take actions that will increase genocide.When there are two and each threatens a different amount of genocides, then the anti-genocide thing to do is to vote for the one who threatens the least number.

Should I take your lack of objection as confirmation? If so, good. Now that we have established that reducing genocide is a coherent thing a person can participate in, hopefully that will be the last of the word games. 1/2

Do you have any experience in breaking through thought-stopping cliches?

I didn't say "harm reduce" I said "reduce". Don't put words in my mouth.

If you (as you say) "TRY TO STOP GENOCIDE" and succeed in stopping one of many different genocides, you would have reduced the total number of genocides happening, correct?

Sure, but she's using thought-stopping cliches because she doesn't want to talk about the *other* components that I've been referencing and she can't afford to acknowledge exist. Because she knows that if she acknowledges those it means I'm wrong and she'll "lose" the discussion.

Oh look, a tankie is loosing an argument and is now reduced to initializing insults. I've never seen this before.

If you are anti-genocide, then you perform actions that reduce current or future genocide.

If you are pro-genocide, then you perform actions that maintain or increase current or future genocide.

Correct?

No fucking Shit. Good Job. But that's not what she said.

Oh, then everyone without power is Anti-genocide?

Everyone who doesn't care about genocide but doesn't participate is Anti-genocide?

Refusing to perform the action that reduces genocide is a pro-genocide strategy.

Refusing to vote is pro-genocide.

Being anti-genocide means taking the action that most reduces genocide.

If one hospital has a better method for treating cancer, then the pro-survival hospital is the one with the fewest deaths from cancer per patient.

I'm sorry you can't do math.

I can't believe Tankie creeps are still on the "don't vote for Kamala" train.

Trump is bad for Gaza. You were wrong. Just fucking admit what everyone can see.

Trump is bad for Queer Folk.

Trump is bad for Immigrants.

Trump is bad for workers.

Stop aiding the Fascists you Fake Leftist creeps.

Weirdo thinks not supporting Trump means you think genocide is good.

No, it wasn't. The Anti-genocide candidate is the candidate who will cause the least amount of genocide.

Neither Trump nor Kamala were good on Gaza, but Trump is worse and harder to fight.

Also, Kamala wouldn't have perpetuated a genocide against PoC and Queer Folk. You were wrong. Fuck off.

Wow, really sticking to the hill even though it's actually on fire, huh?

Kamala Harris.

Dumbass.