iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Yeah, you’re right, it’s better when no one knows anything about who you are or what you’re doing.

000

You have literally no idea what a democracy is.

000

Oh yeah? Nader did that? Not the Democrats who failed to capture his voters?

100

…publicity…

100

You would be categorically incorrect to believe this about a candidate who, at any point, came first in the polls during the race. That he won 19.6% of the popular vote isn’t relevant.

100

I really did not expect my mute of the word “kirk” to get as much mileage as it has. Sort of pitiful.

000

I was taught in elementary school that there are major political benefits with regard to publicity in running as a high profile candidate, even if one loses.

100

Although I do have to say that it’s absolutely gobsmacking that anyone invested in US electoral politics could believe that in 2026. What is even the point in caring about parties who no longer even feign to care about representing their constituents’ interests?

100

And I do mean through-out. The mere possibility of vicissitudes in voter morale altering the probabilities doesn’t determine viability; it fairly well establishes it as a base-line, in fact.

000

No, that is not the point, and I already told you to quit wasting my time arguing like it were.

100

I think your idea of what “viable” means is being prejudiced by your desire for this explanation to make any sense. Any candidate that can _lead_ the polls during the election season is obviously _viable_, and nothing post-hoc would alter that.

200

If you could be more attendant to what is being discussed before responding, it’d be courteous.

100

How in the precise fuck is a candidate who LEADS in the polls unviable?

200

“It is not probable” is not what you were arguing nor what I was criticizing. Stop dodging the issue.

000

The UK is first-past-the-post as well is my point. Nothing you just described couldn’t be done here as well.

000

Explain the UK in the 21st century, then?

100

P.S. by that logic, any vote cast for any losing candidate would be "flushed down the toilet"...

100

I literally just relayed how Perot's campaign proved that wasn't true. Reference 1948 if you want a counter-example with EC votes. There is no magical guarantee that the election is secured by one party or the other.

200

OK. One notable counterexample is the Presidential Elections.

000

I love getting quote-tweeted by Stancil, honestly. Such a smorgasboard of nonsense to dunk on, it kind of makes me feel alive, lol.

020

There _are_ a minimum number of votes required to win most elections. Even the Electoral College requires 270 votes. There's also a massive difference between the political capital of an elected official whose base is a minority of their constituency versus one with broad appeal.

100

It'd just happen to be very convenient for both parties if, beyond reason, it happened to be true.

100

Ross Perot was an Independent who for a period of the 1992 Presidential elections polled ahead of both Clinton and Bush. Empirically, there is nothing to base this truism on.

200

This site is really over if Devin got shitcanned for his archival work exposing @whstancil.bsky.social as a fraud. For people more technical than I: there has to be some relay or whatever of ATProto that archives downstream updates in such a way that it preserves it from any upstream deletion, no?

000

𓃦 @wolf.sbs · 14/09/2026

Word. I respect commitment to the deen.

010

Yes, I’m aware of who, lol. Even then, though, it wasn’t necessarily clear to me how ironic she was being when she used it, as using “jihad” as a synonym for “wage battle” is something of a right wing Bush era meme. Anyway, cool, thank you.

110

I don’t mean this to be accusative, but it’s a little unclear if this is meant to be hostile toward Islam or not...

100

You literally cited a work of fiction to prove “the Nazis said it,” so I don’t think any more needs to be said on that.

000

In any case, the law specifies intention of the _acts_, not the actors. It’s written this way to provision one of the following articles to indemnify the publication of intention, such that it’s also subject to these same laws and punishment. “Intent” doesn’t alter the consequences of genocide.

100

Kind of doesn’t matter at the point where you’ve conceded that “Israel” has voiced intent.

100

This sentence doesn’t even make any sense.

001

Wannsee Conference - Wikipedia

And for completeness sake: we have the minutes from that meeting, not _transcripts_, and they're infamously less conclusive than how you portray them to be (which, like I am arguing, does not matter): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee...

en.wikipedia.org

000

And how precisely does this respond to the fact that the Geneva Conventions _EXPLICITLY DO NOT REQUIRE PROVABLE INTENT_?

201

Ignoring the question of what would possess you to link an IMDB page of a Hollywod production on the matter 😭😭😭 what was said in the Wannasee Conference regarding Jews that "Israeli" heads of state AND Trump haven't said IN PUBLIC? You think meetings about the Gaza genocide weren't had beforehand?

200

I’m not saying DON’T DO IT! I’m just making aware that big payouts are a myth akin to welfare queens, so be cautious.

010

Punitive damages are usually reserved for cases in which companies have terminated whistleblowers or refused to participate in illegal activities that results in physical human harm.

100

Firms that litigate wrongful termination suits typically receive about half of the settlement when court costs are factored in, and usually, the settlements are limited to what can be proven that the client lost as a result of (e.g. lost wages.) It’s a loss for the defendant at best.

100

Broad, vapid appeals to the “common man” are hardly a new GOP tactic; in fact, the absence of such rhetoric is relatively new.

020

No Wingnuts Allowed @idyll-dream2.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

Dogwhistle? Disassociating the labor movement from the left or otherwise subordinating it to other partisan political concerns is very much characteristic of the right.

220

Reposted by 𓃦

Why? He's the one leading the effort to kill every Palestinian in the land.

Reposted by 𓃦

No, he isn’t. That’s not even technically the function of a Prime Minister, but of the President, but even assuming otherwise, there’s a Minister of Defense and chain of command downward that includes support from a _majority_ of “Israelis,” who themselves are IDF reservists.

Reposted by 𓃦

The bigger point, though, is that there’s a history from the Nakba through until now that you’re ignoring to the effect of genocide denialism when you exceptionalize the Gaza genocide as being “Netanyahu’s.”

Reposted by 𓃦

He was embroiled in a political catastrophe at the time of 10/7 over a constitutional crisis he triggered anyway, there’s no way he would have had the political capital to unilaterally direct the genocide to begin with.

001

001