For extra drama, the genocidaire possible world is probably actual: there are plausible cases (here: Rwandan) of genocidaires who saved as many as they killed. It seems to follow, on the story we’re offered, that they should be treated as we would treat those who killed no one at all.
I think that relies on interpreting "innocent" as innocent. It sounds to me like they're trying to make (i) a causal argument about Harris winning in 2024 rather than Trump (ii) linked to a causal argument about criticism of US-Israel policy under Biden
It's nestled right next to a tweet where someone else appears to be trying to say "If only hadn't called it genocide ".
Both of these have the same level of thick descriptive beef + implausible claims as reading one half of theological arguments in 700AD Byzantium.
It's fine for people to just ... find other people annoying. The overworked attempt to assert deep causal significance is wearying. Particularly since ... it's directed at no one - nobody with a name or office or job that you could be read as requiring accountability.
Which is weird, because there are some individuals for which that is true, like this guy (being interviewed): www.youtube.com/shorts/YJ3Lv...
Worth taking into account, since there’ll end up corrupting folk (so we have reason to pay attention even apart from their being annoying).
*they’ll