Transgender for everyone doesn’t sound good though, does it? I mean - isn’t that going a bit too far?

You’re very cross because I don’t support genocide. Hmm… I think we’re getting to the real issue…

No. The genocide was started under Biden. It is going no faster now than it would have under Harris. The ONLY difference is we have a chance to end it in 2028. What don’t you understand?

So you are saying that Democrats will insist on a genocidal candidate even if it means another republican win? That’s a very cynical take. Why do you think that is ok for them? I’m baffled that you think it is ok for them to commit crimes against humanity.

So you think I am Russian because I oppose genocide? You know perfectly well that the genocide started under Biden. Sure it continued under Trump, but it would have continued under Harris too. The ONLY way to end it is to lock the democrats out of power until they chose an anti-genocide candidate.

But there is no harm reduction. The genocide would have carried on under Harris, the only difference would be we would have no chance to end it in 2028. A Harris loss means that we have a chance to force the democrats to end it in 2028. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

No, the democrats made that inevitable. All they had to do to win was not commit genocide. I am sorry that they preferred to let Trump win - I hope they make a better choice in 2028. Of course - you think it is unreasonable to expect them to field a non-genocidal candidate. That is a very strange position to take.

No, if I was a republican I would be happy about the genocide. I am a leftist - and I will not support a party that supports genocide. That is the only ethical position to take. You are a bad faith genocide supporter.

If that’s what it takes for the democrats to realize they cannot win on a platform of genocide - it’s unfortunate - but it’s the price they made us all pay.

Because I oppose genocide? What a strange idea.

Honestly you seem like a child unable to assess the risks. Sure - the odds of any individual in the US being killed with their own gun is small, but it is dramatically higher than the odds of them defending themselves against an assailant. It’s just an unnecessary game of russian roulette. Owning a gun is a hazard that makes people significantly less safe than not owning one.

Well what usually happens is that someone is killed with the gun they bought that they thought would make them safer. What don’t you understand?

I’m not an accelerationist. I simply believe that ‘not being a genocidal ghoul’ is not too much to ask from a democrat. It’s rather troubling to me that you don’t.

You should weigh the costs and benefits of each. If you need help, in the United States table saws cause roughly zero deaths in the US every year, by contrast guns kill roughly 45,000 people annually.

Thanks - I don’t really want to pay the memory premium for the pro…

It is still approaching zero, unlike the very much higher risk of being killed with your own gun.

Refusing to vote for a genocide gives the democrats an option - run non-genocidal candidates. Your analysis treats every election as independent event - they are not. The previous election influences the next - being locked out of power for being genocidal sends a message.

Thanks - that’s helpful. What’s your go-to for a linux laptop that has the build quality of Apple?

Oh - yes - sorry - I’m not interested in the AI series. Should have said that.

The danger of a gun FAR outweighs the vanishingly rare outliers where a gun is helpful. There is no question about this. Only fevered gun-fondlers can manage to confuse themselves on this issue. It’s very very clear.